Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
"Slava Borilin" <Borilin@spiritdsp.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 17:34 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 081FE3A6B0A; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.969, 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 1jjpmJKmbzZw; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.spiritcorp.com (mail3.spiritcorp.com [85.13.194.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236F03A6F44; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:34:36 -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 n52HXu8Z066709; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:33:57 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from Borilin@spiritdsp.com)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9E3A8.4D82F4FA"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:33:54 +0400
Message-ID: <AA5A65FC22B6F145830AC0EAC7586A6C04BF9091@mail-srv.spiritcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e9223710906021031i31e024dam5673ca9608017d73@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [AVT] [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
Thread-Index: AcnjqANErfh4GUqeQ4SC5NZuzNxHZgAAB2LQ
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>
From: Slava Borilin <Borilin@spiritdsp.com>
To: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 192.168.125.15
Cc: hsinnrei@adobe.com, dispatch@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.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 17:34:42 -0000
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)