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

[Jason Fischl <[e-mail]>]

I've requested a mailing list and it has been approved. It should be live in
a day or so. I'll post the details once it is live.

Jason



On 6/2/09 6:50 PM, "Eric Burger" <[e-mail]> wrote:

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