[codec] additional topics for discussion

Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> Fri, 09 April 2010 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mknappe@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3523A6808 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.679, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rEwsvB65-6a7 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D4C3A672F for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS78vQqQIdTvhSp7PG17Z3Z/vpwIoXmOd@postini.com; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:44:36 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::a124:1ab1:8e0b:f671%11]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:39:51 -0700
From: Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net>
To: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 06:39:47 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] additional topics for discussion
Thread-Index: AcrX6h6mtT3sL3z7WkuM9le+u+8/EA==
Message-ID: <C7E47C33.14368%mknappe@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [codec] additional topics for discussion
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:44:40 -0000

We’ve had some good discussion around DTMF carriage and tandem/transcode situations, let’s continue to open up discussion to other points of interest. Here’s a few that we’ve had some initial discussion about at IETF77 and/or on the mailing list:

1. sample rates: which sample rate(s) will the proposed codec support? If more than one, will one of the sample rates be a MUST handled by all implementations, with the others optional dependent on the capabilities of the endpoint? Will each sample rate variation of the codec be treated as a unique codec as far as SDP negotiation is concerned?
2. joint stereo/channel coding: will joint channel coding be supported, perhaps optionally?
3. multi-channel frame ordering: what channel naming and ordering scheme will we support or specify for packing variations of multiple channels in each frame?
4. packet loss concealment: will PLC be a mandatory component of the codec? Will the codec provide an implementation of PLC, but with the hooks to allow different and potentially improved (or network condition specific) implementations of PLC to be substituted in the codec?
5. bit-exact vs. bit-compatible: will all variations of the codec allow bit-compatible implementation, or will we specify a bit-exact variation of the codec (e.g. Specifying a bit-exact fixed point implementation of the lowest sample rate variation of the codec)?
6. reference use-cases and topologies: let’s start putting together a doc of use-cases and topologies that we expect the proposed codec to operate in. This will be useful for both determining implementation characteristics of the codec as well as its test regimen. Any takers for kicking this off?
7. quality assessment / qualification process: we need to begin putting together a doc that details how we will assess the proposed codec, anyone interested in working on this?

Comments and discussion welcome!

Cheers,

Mike