Hello Christian, On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:27, Christian Hoene <hoene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Xavior Marjou, > >> We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from >> Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks >> (gateways, service plate-forms, mediaservers...) and in terminals >> represents high costs for service providers, manufacturers and chipset >> providers in terms of development, deployment and testing with risks >> to create bugs and problems affecting customers. Furthermore, this >> multiplies the problems of interoperability with already deployed >> codecs and the transcoding needs to be addressed with related costs >> (gateways) and quality degradations. > > I have heard similar concerns from German traditional telcos, too. However, > the currently envisioned codec is based on a more Internet like scenario: a > dumb network and smart end terminal. This means: fewer gateways and less > transcoding inside the network but smarter end terminals (=phones). Also, > the codec is intended to be used in an end-to-end fashion with the encoding > and decoding done at the Internet phones. This is not entirely right. This codec should be also useful in conference scenarios, where you have to decode it at conference server and encode mixed signal again. And if I haven't missed something, this use-case was explicitly listed in codec requirements. On the other hand, it was stated in the same requirements, that interoperability with older codecs is not a goal. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf