Olivier Crête wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 06:50 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Paul Witty wrote: >>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> Lauri Kaila wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2008/4/10, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Offlist, someone mentioned to me that it might be appropriate for >>>>>> XEP-0167 to recommend or even require support for the ITU-T's G.711 >>>>>> technology, which is represented by payload-types 0 (PCMU) and 8 >>>>>> (PCMA) >>>>>> as registered with the IANA. >>>>>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.711/e >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think 64 kbits/s is too much to be mandatory. >>>>> >>>> I think the idea was that G.711 is supported everywhere, so recommending >>>> support for it in Jingle would help interoperability with existing SIP >>>> networks and the PSTN. >>>> >>> Indeed. We have a Jingle->SIP/H.323 gateway. I don't know of any SIP >>> or H.323 endpoints which support Speex, so if that is the only >>> recommended codec for Jingle audio, then we have to be prepared to >>> transcode the audio in all cases. By guaranteeing a minimum of G.711, >>> we should be always able to gateway between protocols without >>> transcoding if so desired, even if we may need to transcode for higher >>> quality audio e.g. Speex to AAC. >> Right, that's the idea. >> >> Is basic G.711 still patent-encumbered in any way? I'll have to do some >> research on that... > > The G.711 standard was published in 1972, I don't know of any > jurisdiction where patents can last that long.
I don't either. :) A quick search didn't yield any patents outstanding, so I think it's probably safe (IANAL etc.). Now the question is whether it should be mandatory to implement or just recomended. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
