Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Christian Hoene <[e-mail]>]

Dear Herve Taddei,

> Besides, I don't think you would have any trouble to propose at ITU-T some
> new appendices to G.711 and G.722 that could fit your goals. An appendix is
> non normative (a bit like the informative reference to G.711 PLC in iLBC).
> By the way, if I am not wrong, some basic ITU-T G.722 PLCs are RF.

This was my understanding, too. 

> Not considering G.711 and G.722 because they do not have RF appendices does
> not sound to be optimal in term of interoperability, better to work on
> making RF some new appendices.

This would be a good solution. If some missing features ITU codecs are
identified with the IETF, why not add them as new ITU appendix?  I think
this is an example of a legitimate way of cooperation between ITU and
IETF.

At this point of time the draft containing the list of requirements is
not finished - thus is a bit of speculation whether existing codecs can
fulfill the requirements by adding extensions. However, based on the
current state of discussion and the high quality of the contributed
codecs, I have my doubts whether extensions will lead to the best
solution. Instead, a new codec might need to be developed. In this case,
what would be your suggestion on how to cooperate between IETF and ITU?

With best regards,

 Christian



> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Steve Underwood
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:02 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
> 
> On 01/10/2010 03:57 PM, Koen Vos wrote:
> > Quoting Herve Taddei:
> >
> >> [] some existing standard codecs (at least G.711, G.722) are already 
> >> optimized for interactive Internet applications, []
> >
> > How can these codecs be optimized if their bitrates are many times 
> > higher than state-of-the-art codecs?  You don't think bitrates matter 
> > for interactive Internet applications?  I can assure you they do (for 
> > congested/shared networks, WiFi/3G, conferences, video calling, 
> > dial-up, etc).
> Its not just about bit rates. G.711 and G.722 are only really optimised 
> for internet applications when you include the Appendices. Those 
> Appendices appear to be patent encumbered, so they fail a key criterion 
> for this group's work.
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec