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

I would argue that G.711 is implemented, not because anyone can implement it, but because everyone else has implemented it. It essentially forms the lowest common denominator for interoperability. If fancy codec x doesn't work, then assuming you have the bandwidth availabile, G.711 probably will. And I suspect it is royalty free not because it was always so, but because any IPR that existed has pretty much expired by now.

G.711 is also the one codec that is probably the most neutral to transcoding. I can do to codec A to G.711 and back to codec A with less impact that with any other intermediate codec.

For wideband there probably is not any one codec that has achieved that position.

I don't believe building a better, even royalty free codec, will guarantee a position in the market place. The world is littered with better solutions that never made it. You need a market where everyone chooses to implement it so that you can use that codec without having to go to transcoding. Pasting IETF on the front cover does not achieve that.

I don't really have a problem with people trying to sit down and design a new codec and IETF then publishing it. Without some other selling point however it just becomes yet another codec competing for market place. As such, put it somewhere where it does not interfere with other work. Sticking it on a separate mailing list, and not letting it compete for valuable IETF face to face slots as a working group is fine.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan York
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:46 PM
> To: dispatch@ietf.org
> Cc: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet 
> Wideband Audio Codec WG
> 
> I've been reading this thread with great interest as for the 
> past probably 6 years or so I've been saying to anyone who 
> will listen (and to those who won't ;-) that one factor that 
> will help "IP
> communications/VoIP/UC/whatever-marketing-term-we-want-to-rename-our-
> products-to-this-week" to really find wide adoption is to 
> provide a "rich communication experience" better than what 
> people are used to now.
> 
> Wideband audio is, to me, a huge part of that.
> 
> However, I completely agree with Henning on this point:
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> >
> >> However, if we don't do this, we are stuck with the status 
> quo, which 
> >> is not all that satisfactory.
> 
> 
> The status quo is not satisfactory.  If you want to add 
> wideband audio  
> to your product, you've got an alphabet soup of mutually 
> incompatible  
> options with vastly different licensing terms/fees/options 
> and source  
> code availability.
> 
> I think we ultimately need a "G.711 for wideband", i.e. a wideband  
> codec that anyone can implement in any device.  I'd argue 
> that a large  
> part of the reason we are "stuck" with so many people in VoIP 
> using G. 
> 711 is precisely because ANYONE can implement it in basically ANY  
> device.  You can buy a G.711 codec implementation or you can write  
> your own or find some code on the Internet (google "G.711 source  
> code"). You can implement G.711 in your big softswitch or 
> IP-PBX... or  
> you can implement it in some small embedded device.
> 
> And it interoperates.
> 
> We need that kind of codec for wideband.... which I would say is  
> "royalty-free" and needs to have "open source" implementations  
> available.   (And yes, I know Speex is out there - I don't 
> have a view  
> as to why it is not more widely implemented.  And yes, I know 
> Skype is  
> giving away SILK royalty-free, but it's not open source.)
> 
> Can the IETF help with this?  I don't know... but I think 
> it's worth a  
> shot.  If there is a group that is passionate about this (and there  
> seems to be) then lets get the mailing list set up and have 
> it go the  
> regular List -> BOF -> Working Group trajectory.
> 
> In the best case perhaps we come out with the codec we 
> want/need.  At  
> the very worst I think we'd wind up with at least creating some good  
> discussions and requirements for what we do need.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> Dan
> 
> -- 
> Dan York, Director of Conversations
> Voxeo Corporation   http://www.voxeo.com  dyork@voxeo.com
> Phone: +1-407-455-5859    Skype: danyork
> 
> Join the Voxeo conversation:
> Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo  http://twitter.com/danyork
> Facebook: http://www.voxeo.com/facebook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 