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

"Slava Borilin" <Borilin@spiritdsp.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Borilin@spiritdsp.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 143AB28C257 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 RwTcNwXEV4D7 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.spiritcorp.com (mail3.spiritcorp.com [85.13.194.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FA028C19B for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-srv.spiritcorp.com (mail-srv.spiritcorp.com [192.168.125.3]) by mail3.spiritcorp.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with SMTP id n52F7Z2u063597; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:07:36 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from Borilin@spiritdsp.com)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9E393.D8DC653C"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:07:28 +0400
Message-ID: <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF905A@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
Thread-Index: AcnjPsupfF5mOurzS56CspyVx1UVAAASp85lAABC9mAAAk428A==
References: <4A24B17A.5000408@ericsson.com> <C64A98E2.3E3D%hsinnrei@adobe.com>
From: Slava Borilin <Borilin@spiritdsp.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, Jason Fischl <jason.fischl@skype.net>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 192.168.125.15
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:26:35 -0700
Cc: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>, dispatch@ietf.org
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:08:16 -0000

Dear Gonzalo,
 
by "to convince them may be to have IETF people with knowledge in this
area volunteer to
work on this and review the results." Gonzalo means find IETF voluntiers
to review the idea of the WG?"

you mean to find the IETF people who will vounteers to review the idea
of such Wideband WG?
 
regards,
Slava Borilin
 
------ Forwarded Message
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:58:34 -0700
To: Adobe Systems <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
Cc: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, Jason Fischl
<jason.fischl@skype.net>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>,
"Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, Cullen Jennings
<fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec
WG

Hi Henry,

given that some people on the list think that the IETF does not have
that type of expertise, we need to have those list discussions so that
the WG reaches consensus (one way or the other). It seems that when iLBC
was developed, it was difficult to find IETF people to review it. That
is probably why some people are hesitant about this. A way to convince
them may be to have IETF people with knowledge in this area volunteer to
work on this and review the results.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> (list deleted)
>
> Gonzalo,
>
>>whether or not the IETF in general and RAI in particular have the
> expertise to
>>do this or at least review it when it is done. Comments?
>
> The folks from Skype driving this proposal have without any doubt the
> best qualifications for building voice codecs, just as have many other
> IETF AVT contributors, such as for the iLBC, SPEEX, IP-MR and other
codecs.
>
> The pushback for the proposal for a WG for an Internet Audio Codec, is
> quite amazing, especially the argument on available expertise.
> (You certainly understand my arguments why the better expertise for an
> _Internet_ codec is just in the IETF, and certainly not in the ITU-T,
> ETSI, OMA, etc.).
>
> I don't plan therefore to participate any more in this discussion.
>
> Henry
>
>
> On 5/30/09 1:17 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I think Roni touches upon an important point here. The first
question we
>     need to answer (not only for this proposal; for any proposal) is
whether
>     or not the IETF in general and RAI in particular have the
expertise to
>     do this or at least review it when it is done. Comments?
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Gonzalo
>
>     Roni Even 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
>



------ End of Forwarded Message