Proposed Aim for Speak Freely

> If there are going to be more codecs than there are now (a bad idea,
IMHO),
______________

JM2C but I agree; there are some very standardized very efficient codecs
available and adding them to SF while maybe shedding some of the more
inefficient ones would be a justifiable change.


> Things will get really complicated in conferences.  There may not be
enough
> bandwidth in the conference "reflector" to handle wideband data streams,
> sent out to many listeners.  The negotiation process would be very
complex -
> I suppose you'd have to use the lowest common denominator for all
conference
> members.  The conference reflector may have to keep track of the
individual
> abilities and preferences of each of its conference members and possibly
act
> as a codec negotiation proxy.

Either this, or build the negotiation into the reflector and disallow the
high-bandwidth codecs there. Or specify that high-bandwidth codecs aren't
allowed in conferences by default. Not everything has to be complicated. :)
__________________

I'm convinced that's the only real bullet-proof solution. In fact,
standardizing to
one or two very good codecs would save a lot of 'horsepower' and allow
a concentration of resources on voice and transmission quality, wouldn't it?



                      * * *

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send E-mail containing
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body (*not* as the
Subject) to [email protected]