Re: [codec] 3/1/2010 weekly update

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I do not think that the name is important. The important part is that the
requirements will be clear and precise without contradicting the charter.
The requirements list the applications and if it will have all applications
than it will be challenging to develop one codec as the charter says that
will address too many usages. It will be important to prioritize the
applications and the major motivation as most of the people mentioned on the
list and in the discussions was conversional services with VOIP as the major
one.
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Michael Knappe
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: Keith Lantz
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] 3/1/2010 weekly update
> 
> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for the matrix info, will look through that in the morning, much
> appreciated.
> 
> On the topic of "conversational" vs "interactive", there has been an
> effort to keep the audio carriage of the codec general and not speech-
> specific, yet clearly 'interactive' in nature, where an audio event at
> one end could be heard and responded to as quickly as possible at the
> other end. Picking non-overlapping language will always be a challenge
> - ironically the term 'codec' itself describes both a signal
> compression/decompression algorithm as well as the hardware packaging
> of an A/D and D/A converter on the same silicon, with both instances
> used back to back in an IP phone! (that's always a tough one to explain
> when block diagramming...).    I would recommend sticking with
> 'interactive' for now.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 3/3/10 12:10 AM, "Keith Lantz" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> With regard to a new name for the group, I would recommend
> "conversational" rather than "interactive" for two related reasons:
> First, "interactive" is used in the context of (streaming) services
> such as IPTV to denote the ability to interact with a stream -- e.g.
> trick play -- as opposed to two-way interaction between people. Thus,
> "interactive audio codec" is subject to being interpreted as a codec
> targeted for such services. Correspondingly, 3GPP, 3GPP2, PacketCable
> and other organizations/efforts adopted "conversational" to clearly
> identify services (and associated codecs) that support two-way
> communication between people. (Google for "conversational services" if
> you don't believe me. ;-))
> 
> With regard to the desired "matrix of basic information", you should
> consider starting with one of two existing matrices:
> 
> 1. The matrices developed for the PacketCable 2.0 Codec & Media
> Specification <http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/PKT-SP-CODEC-
> MEDIA-I08-100120.pdf>  -- in particular, Annexes C & D.
> 
> 2. The matrix/database developed by ITU-T Study Group 16 in support of
> its activities. Unfortunately, I have misplaced the URL, but I am sure
> someone on this distribution must have it.
> 
> I have the Excel workbook that provided the basis for #1 above -- plus
> similar, but less complete, data on super-wideband codecs such as AAC
> and AC-3. If there is interest I will volunteer to attempt to secure
> CableLabs' formal approval to make it publicly available.
> 
> Keith
> 
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Michael Knappe wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone!
> 
> This is the first of what will be weekly update emails on the progress
> of the codec WG. This will include the status of work in progress as
> well as a reminder list for upcoming events. Comments on form / content
> as always more than welcome. We'll also post this info up on the wiki.
> 
> Adoption of WG  documents
> ========================
> There is general consensus to adopt draft-valin-codec-guidelines-02 [3]
> as the initial version of the Codec Standardization Guidelines and
> draft-valin-codec-requirements-02 [4] as the initial version of the
> Technical Requirements, as starting points for discussion and further
> consensus building within the WG.
> 
> WG naming
> ==========
> Koen Vos had a great proposal to change our longer WG title from
> "Internet Wideband Audio Codec" to "Internet Interactive Audio Codec",
> and there appears to be general consensus to move forward with that.
> Will update everyone on progress with the name change.
> 
> Codec info matrix
> ===============
> We'd like to create on our wiki a matrix of basic information about a
> number of codecs that might be considered as input to the WG's efforts.
> Please let Peter or I know if you'd like to help volunteer with that
> effort.
> 
> Upcoming events
> ===============
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 18:00 UTC: Codec WG will hold a virtual interim
> Meeting in preparation for IETF 77, meeting logistics to follow on the
> [e-mail] list.
> 
> Sunday, March 21, 2010: logistics TBD (sometime Sunday evening),
> proposed pre-WG codec beer bash / "technical" summit
> 
> Monday, March 22, 2010, 17:40 PST: codec WG at IETF 77 (provisional)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec