Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Wed, 03 June 2009 01:50 UTC
Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 473E33A6A80; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, MANGLED_INXPNS=2.3]
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 6-NZ5ewKEryq; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.252.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16FB3A6850; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [12.46.252.162] (helo=[172.17.136.184]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1MBfcX-000621-My; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:50:26 -0700
Message-Id: <A4C3A5AB-BC7B-4864-BBA5-23C9B227FCCB@standardstrack.com>
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
To: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0F5850494F549508152266797943F87@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-334--601341967"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
X-Priority: 3
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:50:30 -0400
References: <C64AB99A.3E55%hsinnrei@adobe.com> <E0F5850494F549508152266797943F87@china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [AVT] 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:50:37 -0000
To directly answer Henry, having a mail list and the initial (and possibly detailed) discussion hosted at the IETF costs less than the discussion we are having here. If a codec comes out of it, without having a BOF or WG, that's great! If not, at least there was a forum for doing it. I can also offer a SIP Forum list if people still really, really don't like the idea of even discussing the topic under even the most faintest of auspices of the IETF. If you think I am schizophrenic by offering we can have a discussion in the IETF and at the same time I doubt we could ever have a formal work group to create the codec, you would be only slightly correct :-) But seriously: the IETF (AVT in particular) can pickup the wire format for a codec, once the codec exists. Having a mail list WITHOUT A WORK GROUP give people who want to work on this a venue to do the work, without burdening the AD's, IESG, and the rest of the community. If a codec pops out, then we can run with it. On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I am not an area director, nor do i play one on IPTV, but my > suggestion for anyone interested would be to > > - request a non-WG mailing list (from either of the RAI area > directors), > > - announce it on this mailing list (and others that seem to be > appropriate, and > > - start discussions, which the area directors typically look at when > judging whether there's enough interest and enough clue to justify > approving a BOF and/or chartering a working group. > > I didn't see a mailing list included in Jason's proposal - if I > missed one, my apologies. > > If people at the IETF can do this work, and want to do this work, > IETF process policies should not get in the way of that happening. > > And I haven't heard of an AD turning down a request for a non-WG > mailing list yet, keeping in mind that one of said lists is ietf- > sailors, for people interested in sailing to/from/at IETF meetings - > the bar is (appropriately) low. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henry Sinnreich > To: Roni Even ; Jean-Marc Valin > Cc: dispatch@ietf.org ; Slava Borilin ; avt@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:12 AM > Subject: Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband > Audio Codec WG > > >This leaves the other reasons I heard for doing it at the IETF > which is the > >price of participating > > This is an important point. > Given the travel constraints for some of the most valuable potential > contributors and reviewers, could we envisage online work until the > economy improves, so that an eventual BOF to start with should not > be starved of attendees? An online BOF? > > There are several free online meeting tools available... > > How can this be done within the IETF policy? > > Henry > > > On 6/2/09 10:57 AM, "Roni Even" <Even.roni@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I do not want to sound like someone who is for IPR (I am not), but > why stop > at codec, let's require it for all IETF work. There are IPR on IETF > work > which is must simpler, in my view, than wide band audio codecs. > > I think that we can start with "royalty free" even though I am not > sure that > it will accepted as part of the charter of any other work group so > why pick > on codecs which require more work. > > This leaves the other reasons I heard for doing it at the IETF which > is the > price of participating (cheaper than being an ITU-T member) and > maybe design > less expensive characterization tests. > > Roni > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@octasic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:14 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: 'Slava Borilin'; avt@ietf.org; 'Jason Fischl';dispatch@ietf.org; > hsinnrei@adobe.com > Subject: Re: [AVT] [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband > Audio Codec > WG > > Hi, > > Roni Even wrote: > > > > I am not sure what prevented you from doing it today at the ITU or > > MPEG, why do you see the IETF handling it differently. > > > > I would also like to remind you and Jean-Marc that once you are > > bringing work to a standard body it may require collaboration with > > other people who will have other proposals that will also address > the > > same requirements and you may need to invest money in comparative > > testing by independent listening labs. > > > > I also think that you will need to supply the codec in source code > and > > provide copy right to the IETF. > > > > I am well aware that bringing work to the IETF would require > collaboration with others. I am not seeking control over the work I am > currently doing and would really welcome such collaboration. The > idea is > only to have the best wideband codec possible without IPR issues. > Given > the ITU and MPEG track record, I think it would be very unlikely for > any > of those organisations to work on an IPR-free codec. > > I also agree with Henry that "the Internet has different criteria than > ITU-T networks may have". Internet adoption follows different patterns > than adoption in the ITU primary target markets. For example, the > Internet has more consumer-reconfigurable software, while the ITU > has to > deal with a lot of fixed hardware deployments. At the ITU, it makes > sense to invest large sums of money into testing and > characterisation of > codecs because the codecs deployed there usually stay around for a > long > time and the infrastructure investments are usually very large. On the > other hand, I would say the investments in codecs for the Internet are > comparatively smaller and, while testing is still important, it is not > as critical as it is for the ITU. > > It's also a choice one has to make. It is unlikely that companies > would > invest money in expensive testing if they are not going to obtain > royalties in return. However, I think we may be able to define some > more > lightweight (collaborative?) testing that is sufficient and doesn't > involve as much investments as what the ITU does. For the Internet, I > believe an IPR-free codec that everyone agrees performs well is better > than a patent-encumbered codec that has had more extensive testing. > This > is again another difference with the ITU: patent-encumbered codecs > tend > to hurt a lot more on the Internet because many applications (e.g. > giving away the client) are very hard (or impossible) when one has to > pay per-channel royalties. > > As for the source code issue you pointed out, all the Xiph codecs are > already published under a very permissive open source license (BSD), > so > this would not really change. > > Jean-Marc > > > Roni > > > > > > > > *From:* avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf > > Of *Slava Borilin > > *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2009 11:50 PM > > *To:* jean-marc.valin@octasic.com > > *Cc:* avt@ietf.org; Jason Fischl > > *Subject:* Re: [AVT] [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband > > Audio Codec WG > > > > > > > > Agree with Jean-Marc. > > SPIRIT is interested to contribute as well - having a dozen of > proprietary > codecs developed, including > > one specifically desgined for internet (SPIRIT IP-MR, which is now > under > WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ipmr-04) - > > multi-rate, scalable, adaptive, wideband codec. > > > > We can also continue this work with IETF. > > > > Moreover, most if not all efforts coming from ITU on codecs > unfortunately > are NOT really focused on > > internet-specific codecs (that's why several companies have had to > invent) > - as ITU preference is mainly > > specific (i.e. cellular) networks at first. > > > > however, as we see the greant rise of pure "internet-basd > communications" > (skype, webex/citrix, and many others) - > > we all (and users) are suffering from inefficiency in all currently > "standard" codecs and ambiguity in the choice of > > internet-targeted ones. > > > > Again, we probably can put together enough number of contributors > to the > WG to have the expertise. > > > > regards, > > Slava Borilin > > > > -- > > John Lazzaro wrote: > > > > A traditional response to this type of request is to note that > the > IETF > > > > really doesn't have much in the way of expertise in audio codec > design. > > > > I don't see many of the regulars who present at the AES codec > paper > sessions > > > > posting here on AVT (ditto ICASSP paper sessions for voice > codecs). > It's > > > > a full-time job to keep up-to-date and contribute to that > > > > signal-processing lore. > > > > > > > > Well, there's no reason that the IETF cannot build such an expertise > > in audio codecs. This is actually something in which I'd be > interested > > in getting involved and I'm sure others at Xiph.Org would be > > interested as well. We have several people with audio codec > expertise > > from working on Vorbis, Speex and (more recently) CELT. It turns out > > that the CELT codec currently under development at Xiph actually > meets > > most of the requirements from the original proposal in being a very > > low delay codec with adaptive bit-rate and sampling rate (up to 48 > > kHz), scalable complexity, and good robustness to packet loss. > We'd be > > willing to continue the development with the IETF. Even if not with > > CELT, it's still like to be involved in such a new WG. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jean-Marc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
- [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Aud… Jason Fischl
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Eric Burger
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Scott Lawrence
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Jason Fischl
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Mary Barnes
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Eric Burger
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… eburger
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband… Slava Borilin
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Roni Even
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… James M. Polk
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Slava Borilin
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… stephen botzko
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… stephen botzko
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… stephen botzko
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… David Singer
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… David Singer
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Randell Jesup
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Slava Borilin
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Eric Burger
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Eric Burger
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Dan York
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Jason Fischl
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Dean Willis
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Christopher Montgomery
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wi… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)