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

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

Spencer,

Thanks, you are right, I also want to point out that you may end up with
companies asking their audio expert to do also IETF work, adding more travel
and time budget on top of the work they are doing in MPEG and ITU.

 

Roni

 

From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich; Roni Even; Jason Fischl; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

 

Hi, Henry,

 

I may have misunderstood Roni's point, but I thought that he was saying that
audio codec types don't participate in the IETF today, because the IETF does
not develop audio codecs (and AVT is prohibited by charter from producing
one, because of a stated belief that we don't have the expertise in the IETF
to do this work).

 

Thanks,

 

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Henry Sinnreich <mailto:[e-mail]>  

To: Roni Even <mailto:[e-mail]>  ; Jason
<mailto:[e-mail]>  Fischl ; [e-mail] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:28 AM

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

 

Roni,

Sorry, we have here a fundamental disagreement.
The IETF is chartered for Internet standards and may or may not chose
solutions that apply to ITU-T networks.
The Internet has different criteria than ITU-T networks may have.
A worldwide Internet standard for a wideband codec will be very beneficial
IMO.

Henry


On 5/28/09 9:45 AM, "Roni Even" <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Jason Fischl
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM
To: [e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

  _____  

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch