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

[Henry Sinnreich <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

>a) We do not have the capacity
>b) more importantly, we do not have the expertise.

How do you know this before even counting the volunteering contributors?

Henry


On 5/29/09 10:54 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]> wrote:

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" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]>
>
>         *To:* Roni Even <mailto:[e-mail]>  ; Jason  Fischl
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>  ; [e-mail]
>
>         *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" <[e-mail]>  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: [e-mail]
>             [mailto:[e-mail]]  On Behalf
>             Of Jason Fischl
>             Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM
>             To:  [e-mail]
>             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
>             [e-mail]
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             dispatch  mailing list
>             [e-mail]
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         dispatch mailing  list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch