Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 29 May 2009 15:53 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 96F943A6F20 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GzO-jgLStmOp for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360FE3A6F11 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827224302A5 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-172.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3794302A0 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2009 08:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A20051D.3070302@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:54:05 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
References: <C6456D5B.3DA1%hsinnrei@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <C6456D5B.3DA1%hsinnrei@adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dispatch] 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: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:53:06 -0000
By that model, the IETF should do work on any and every application. a) We do not have the capacity b) more importantly, we do not have the expertise. Codecs is a very good example. It is a highly specialized field, with its own technology base. None of our leadership or structures are designed to have that expertise. Other groups do have that expertise. The very fact that AVT, which would be the only place in the IETF that could vaguely consider undertaking such work, was explicitly chartered not to do this reflects the sensible decision for us to stay out of other people's playgrounds. (Which is fair since we expect them to stay out of ours.) Yours, Joel M. Halpern Henry Sinnreich wrote: > Spencer, > > Yes, your points show exactly why we need a new WG in the IETF chartered > specifically for a standard for an Internet voice (and why not video as > well) codec. > > The _global_ standard nature, royalty free, open source aspects will > most likely warm the heart of most Internet folks. > > The determining factor will be if there are contributors willing to do > the work of writing the I-Ds for the requirements, algorithm, code and > last but not least show measurements about performance. I see signs > that we may have very valuable contributions. > > We can gage the interest for such a WG by the attendance in the BOF at > the 75 IETF in July. > Please just give it a chance. > We may soon be in the fortunate position to finally have an Internet > voice codec standard! > > Henry > > > On 5/29/09 9:56 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> wrote: > > Hi, Henry, > > I may have misunderstood Roni's point, but I thought that he was > saying that audio codec types don't participate in the IETF today, > because the IETF does not develop audio codecs (and AVT is > prohibited by charter from producing one, because of a stated belief > that we don't have the expertise in the IETF to do this work). > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Henry Sinnreich <mailto:hsinnrei@adobe.com> > > *To:* Roni Even <mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> ; Jason Fischl > <mailto:jason.fischl@skype.net> ; dispatch@ietf.org > > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:28 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband > Audio Codec WG > > > Roni, > > Sorry, we have here a fundamental disagreement. > The IETF is chartered for Internet standards and may or may not > chose solutions that apply to ITU-T networks. > The Internet has different criteria than ITU-T networks may have. > A worldwide Internet standard for a wideband codec will be very > beneficial IMO. > > Henry > > > On 5/28/09 9:45 AM, "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > Like you mention other SDOs like ITU-T are doing just that. > They have the > expertise to specify, and evaluate the result. These SDOs > can receive > requirements and select a proper codec based on the > requirements. > > > As for the other reasons: > > 1. Defining a codec in the IETF or even in MPEG / ITU-T > does not make it a > mandatory part of a system solution, this is done by other > standard bodies > like 3GPP, ETSI. > > 2. The IETF, similar to other standard bodies is not rubber > stamping a > specific solution, so you will most probably see in the > final result some > technology that carry IPR. > > 3. If this group will be established, you will probably see > here the audio > experts now working in ITU-T arguing the same issues since > they are the > expertise you need and they work for the same companies that > are already > members of IETF. > > I think that if you have a specific codec in mind you can > make it publicly > available maybe with quality results and standardized in > AVT a payload > specification. > > BTW: The ITU is keeping a list of codecs (Not only ITU-T > ones) in a table > that describes their features. > > Regards > Roni Even > > -----Original Message----- > From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Jason Fischl > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM > To: dispatch@ietf.org > Subject: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband > Audio Codec WG > > All, > > I would like to request agenda time inside the DISPATCH > meeting to propose > the formation of a new working group to define a Proposed > Standard wideband > audio codec. > > The text of the proposal is below. Comments, questions, and > suggestions > welcomed. > > Regards, > Jason > > > Internet Wideband Audio Codec (IWAC) > Mailing Lists: TBD > Chairs: TBD > Area Directorate: Real Time Applications (RAI) > > Purpose: > > This new working group would be chartered with the purpose > of collecting > expertise within the IETF in order to review the design of > audio codecs > specifically for use with the Internet. Unlike other SDOs, > these codecs > would be optimized for use on the Internet, and as much as > possible choose > technology that does not require paying patent royalties. > > The Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC) work was done in > AVT but it was felt > that subsequent work should not be done in the AVT working > group. This new > working group will have as its primary purpose the > standardization of a > multi-purpose audio codec that can be used in various > situations on the > Internet. Some of the proposed Internet-specific > requirements include: > * scalable and adaptive bit rate; > * various sampling rate profiles from narrow-band to > super-wideband; > * scalable complexity; > * low latency; and > * resilience to packet loss. > > There are a number of wide-band capable codecs defined by > other SDOs. For > instance, G.722 is seeing adoption in Enterprise > applications since it is > relatively simple and low-cost to deploy. However, it has a > high, fixed > bitrate and is not appropriate for mobile applications > where spectrum > efficiency is important or in consumer applications where > available > bandwidth is fluctuating or limited. G.722.2 (AMR-wideband) > has been adopted > by the 3GPP as a wideband standard for mobile applications. > G.722.2 is > relatively high cost due to patent royalties and is seeing > minimal > deployments outside of mobile handsets making it > challenging to create > wideband experiences on Internet-capable mobile devices > when extending > beyond the mobile network. In other cases, proprietary > codecs are being > adopted which further create islands with no > interoperability unless > widespread transcoding is performed. Transcoding leads to > higher costs and > lower quality. > > The goal of this working group is to define a single codec > with multiple > profiles which can be made available on a wide variety of > Internet-capable > devices including low-power, mobile devices as well as > devices capable of > utilizing high quality, high bitrate audio. > > Proposed Deliverables: > > 1) Requirements for wideband, Internet audio codec(s). > 2) Algorithm description for wideband, Internet audio > codec(s) as Proposed > Standard. > 3) Specification of payload format(s) for defined codecs as > Proposed > Standard > > _______________________________________________ > 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 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)