Charles Eliot (charle@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:10:36 -0800
Was the original reason to support MS-GSM based more on bandwidth or
desktop ubiquity? It looks like the internal MS issues surrounding the
MS-GSM RFC are on track to be resolved (whew), but I agree with the
sentiment that G.711 is better all round, and that the bandwidth
advantages of GSM are less relevant now than they were a couple of years
ago.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Parsons [mailto:gparsons@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:15 PM
To: Philipp Hoschka
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org; www-smil@w3.org; IETF VPIM List
Subject: [VPIM] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
Patrik Fältström a écrit :
>
> At 14.39 -0500 00-12-07, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
> >In general, I'm a bit confused about the request - why would the
> >IETF have to comment on the minimal set of codecs in a format
> >defined by another organisation ? This would make sense if the
> >goal is to define a minimal set of codecs that need to be supported
> >by MIME mail readers, but otherwise, I don't see the point - am
> >I missing something ?
>
> Because they want to have the same codecs in the other organization
> as we define for use in the IETF I guess.
Sounds reasonable, but in which effort does the IETF define
minimally
required codecs for a format ? If such an effort exists, I guess we'd
be interested to use the same codecs as well.
In the VPIM WG we defined the baseline audio codec for voice mail system
interoperability. It is G.726 for VPIM v2. For IVM the choice is
currently MS-GSM but may be changed to G.711.
In the Fax WG, they defined the baseline image format. It is TIFF-S for
simple mode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 12 2000 - 05:41:35 IST