Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Sat, 30 May 2009 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5433A67F8 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2009 23:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 rauC4UXwjLAX for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2009 23:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86ED43A69CE for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2009 23:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-b7b28ae000005484-ed-4a20cf8a7181
Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 61.6B.21636.A8FC02A4; Sat, 30 May 2009 08:17:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 30 May 2009 08:17:46 +0200
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 30 May 2009 08:17:46 +0200
Received: from [131.160.126.232] (rvi2-126-232.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.126.232]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D4D245E; Sat, 30 May 2009 09:17:45 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4A20CF89.80003@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:17:45 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
References: <C641C6CE.D74E%jason.fischl@skype.net> <4a1ea3e2.0aaa660a.0cc2.18d4@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <4a1ea3e2.0aaa660a.0cc2.18d4@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2009 06:17:46.0221 (UTC) FILETIME=[5952D9D0:01C9E0EE]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 06:16:17 -0000

Hi,

I think Roni touches upon an important point here. The first question we 
need to answer (not only for this proposal; for any proposal) is whether 
or not the IETF in general and RAI in particular have the expertise to 
do this or at least review it when it is done. Comments?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Roni Even wrote:
> Hi,
> Like you mention other SDOs like ITU-T are doing just that. They have the
> expertise to specify, and evaluate the result. These SDOs can receive
> requirements and select a proper codec based on the requirements.
> 
> 
> As for the other reasons:
> 
> 1. Defining a codec in the IETF or even in MPEG / ITU-T does not make it a
> mandatory part of a system solution, this is done by other standard bodies
> like 3GPP, ETSI.
> 
> 2. The IETF, similar to other standard bodies is not rubber stamping a
> specific solution, so you will most probably see in the final result some
> technology that carry IPR.
> 
> 3. If this group will be established, you will probably see here the audio
> experts now working in ITU-T arguing the same issues since they are the
> expertise you need and they work for the same companies that are already
> members of IETF. 
> 
> I think that if you have a specific codec in mind you  can make it publicly
> available maybe with quality results and standardized in AVT a payload
> specification.
> 
> BTW: The ITU is keeping a list of codecs (Not only ITU-T ones) in a table
> that describes their features. 
> 
> Regards
> Roni Even
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Jason Fischl
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM
> To: dispatch@ietf.org
> Subject: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
> 
> All,
> 
> I would like to request agenda time inside the DISPATCH meeting to propose
> the formation of a new working group to define a Proposed Standard wideband
> audio codec.
> 
> The text of the proposal is below. Comments, questions, and suggestions
> welcomed.
> 
> Regards, 
> Jason
> 
> 
> Internet Wideband Audio Codec (IWAC)
> Mailing Lists: TBD
> Chairs: TBD
> Area Directorate: Real Time Applications (RAI)
> 
> Purpose:
> 
> This new working group would be chartered with the purpose of collecting
> expertise within the IETF in order to review the design of audio codecs
> specifically for use with the Internet. Unlike other SDOs, these codecs
> would be optimized for use on the Internet, and as much as possible choose
> technology that does not require paying patent royalties.
> 
> The Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC)  work was done in AVT but it was felt
> that subsequent work should not be done in the AVT working group. This new
> working group will have as its primary purpose the standardization of a
> multi-purpose audio codec that can be used in various situations on the
> Internet. Some of the proposed Internet-specific requirements include:
> * scalable and adaptive bit rate;
> * various sampling rate profiles from narrow-band to super-wideband;
> * scalable complexity;
> * low latency; and 
> * resilience to packet loss.
> 
> There are a number of wide-band capable codecs defined by other SDOs. For
> instance, G.722 is seeing adoption in Enterprise applications since it is
> relatively simple and low-cost to deploy. However, it has a high, fixed
> bitrate and is not appropriate for mobile applications where spectrum
> efficiency is important or in consumer applications where available
> bandwidth is fluctuating or limited. G.722.2 (AMR-wideband) has been adopted
> by the 3GPP as a wideband standard for mobile applications. G.722.2 is
> relatively high cost due to patent royalties and is seeing minimal
> deployments outside of mobile handsets making it challenging to create
> wideband experiences on Internet-capable mobile devices when extending
> beyond the mobile network. In other cases, proprietary codecs are being
> adopted which further create islands with no interoperability unless
> widespread transcoding is performed. Transcoding leads to higher costs and
> lower quality. 
> 
> The goal of this working group is to define a single codec with multiple
> profiles which can be made available on a wide variety of Internet-capable
> devices including low-power, mobile devices as well as devices capable of
> utilizing high quality, high bitrate audio.
> 
> Proposed Deliverables:
> 
> 1) Requirements for wideband, Internet audio codec(s).
> 2) Algorithm description for wideband, Internet audio codec(s) as Proposed
> Standard. 
> 3) Specification of payload format(s) for defined codecs as Proposed
> Standard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>