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

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] ; Slava Borilin ; [e-mail]
> 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" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:14 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'Slava Borilin'; [e-mail]; 'Jason Fischl';[e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On  
> Behalf
> > Of *Slava Borilin
> > *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2009 11:50 PM
> > *To:* [e-mail]
> > *Cc:* [e-mail]; 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch