Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 18:13 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.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 A8FDD28C133; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 LgXl-tmn6var; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f222.google.com (mail-bw0-f222.google.com [209.85.218.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B1328C12A; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz22 with SMTP id 22so8347888bwz.37 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kAh8a/DuAVpEEz58lf3r3fiqzsCQV7ZU6G+WM7tSUSo=; b=f1kQkkz3hGhUsIAfrV0NmGDUyWElYnBxg48sIn2VYL3A12rukSCDW8qdJXZps2i2/Y ZDjEw5U1s5fLVEpHzsjxmi0ht1eHRx78TqKIiA0lFDZ8FTCQ0tidfvaxtN7Ied7PIRaf YslbuFAQqA/NCgJfEsyk2V53yYZIbgoYAr6BU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=HYcTohrGrtWpjlOuM8P4RMf3s5jIqQ7O+MyJ/eIyBgWFD+9YgzVwhbTrk3oml0/Rtm QuOTFiHoPmptdRc+XicRD7shtTR0lZ1LSceXkNzMR/L5h484tRK3a5XBCSrKC2l+lMw5 o5yGzVWqKbk6A9wCMyF5Uk4KotZ6vaGKQIzMg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.241.15 with SMTP id t15mr4118708mur.85.1243966393155; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF9091@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com>
References: <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF8E77@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com> <00a401c9e388$b25c2350$171469f0$%roni@huawei.com> <4A2541B9.2000805@octasic.com> <00d501c9e39a$dcbbbe50$96333af0$%roni@huawei.com> <D1611ACB-4739-4A65-94F0-403FC24CDC43@cs.columbia.edu> <6e9223710906021031i31e024dam5673ca9608017d73@mail.gmail.com> <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF9091@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:13:13 -0400
Message-ID: <6e9223710906021113w30a16a6cg7347f83c0162ba58@mail.gmail.com>
From: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Slava Borilin <Borilin@spiritdsp.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636b430c8fa044c046b617ead"
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>, hsinnrei@adobe.com
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:13:17 -0000
>>> i think this is probably false alert. I would hope so. I think its important that the characterization testing (however it is done) prevent the standardization of a codec that is sub-standard. So I'd prefer Henning's last risk item to be that "a standardizable codec might not result". Steve B. On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Slava Borilin <Borilin@spiritdsp.com> wrote: > I do not beleive the one that will come wil be low quality. > at least people from the potential contributors (at least Skype, Speex, > SPIRIT) are already pretty-good in the commercially exploiting their own > codecs on the market. > i think this is probably false alert. > > regards, > Slava Borilin > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:32 PM > *To:* Henning Schulzrinne > *Cc:* Roni Even; dispatch@ietf.org; Jason Fischl; avt@ietf.org; > hsinnrei@adobe.com; Slava Borilin > > *Subject:* Re: [AVT] [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio > Codec WG > > >>> - the quality of the codec may not be competitive > > I think its very important that the codec quality be competitive. People > expect excellence from IETF standards Standardizing non-competitive codecs > because they are cheap does not seem to be a good choce. > > Steve B. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>wrote: > >> I view this as a trade-off. If we pursue this, there are risks: >> >> - nothing may come of it since there are no experts willing to help >> - somebody will claim IPR on the resulting work >> - the quality of the codec may not be competitive >> >> However, if we don't do this, we are stuck with the status quo, which is >> not all that satisfactory. Thus, unless there are significant costs for >> "innocent bystanders", I see this as a risk worth taking. In the worst case, >> we are no worse off than we are today. In all other cases, we'll have an >> additional choice for a wideband codec, even if it's not "the best", just >> "good enough". After all, most people use G.711 today, which has a really >> hard time making that claim. >> >> Most real work in the IETF is done by very small teams, typically less >> than 10, so as long as we have a handful of people that are willing to >> contribute, this can work. It might even work better, since you may get >> fewer people who have half-baked opinions - we may skip the binary vs. XML >> debates... >> >> We can set some ground rules ("must be tested with packet loss of 5%") and >> then see what happens. Compared to most network protocols, the likely >> negative impacts (such as security or congestion control issues) of even a >> badly-designed codec are pretty limited. >> >> Henning >> >> >> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Roni Even 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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Audio/Video Transport Working Group >>> avt@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Audio/Video Transport Working Group >> avt@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt >> > >
- [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)