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

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

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