Re: [rtcweb] Number of samples (ptime) to be supported by required codecs (draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-05)

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 25 February 2014 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263CB1A0686 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hW5pwMzb6EAY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE3C1A0682 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:23:57 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f418e000001099-07-530c6f3cdd1c
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 46.05.04249.C3F6C035; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:55 +0100
Message-ID: <530C6F3C.1090709@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:56 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <530320F7.4090300@ericsson.com> <5303E578.3000207@alvestrand.no> <53046842.2010108@ericsson.com> <5304F3E0.1020206@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5304F3E0.1020206@alvestrand.no>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RtcmnyfY4OgOdYtjfV1sFmv/tbM7 MHlcmXCF1WPJkp9MAUxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBln77UyFpwUqPh68SRLA+Ne3i5GDg4JAROJ xjsGXYycQKaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMErMPNPCDuEsZ5SYs3AlE0gVr4C2xJrJs8FsFgFViVdb djOC2GwCFhI3fzSygdiiAsESOw/8ZoSoF5Q4OfMJC4gtImAvcXHOSzBbWKBQ4siuHlaIBb2M Ej9ergRr4BTQlWh8e4sV4jpxiZ7GIJAws4CexJSrLYwQtrxE89bZzCC2ENA9DU0drBMYBWch WTcLScssJC0LGJlXMXIUpxYn5aYbGWxiBAblwS2/LXYwXv5rc4hRmoNFSZz341vnICGB9MSS 1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MBs+9/Gdl15QXBacaOW6o/sasfkus4OsOFembRv4bdTZ/ fPFFPm9PAnta7M5KZs8zLd8PZLz6u3KN1vLFTv5v10q5s9/58sXOUXP/u9YZ+g2O/76v+zPz uPaa9weaJysVsDJtclbVav7j/rnhvbGL6av7x0L/pGamiDT5GTwP2auVxvrSgLdGiaU4I9FQ i7moOBEA9+61qxgCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/0cTdfZXr8hal4q56T35U5L3uqbs
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Number of samples (ptime) to be supported by required codecs (draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-05)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:24:00 -0000

On 2014-02-19 19:11, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 09:16 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> On 2014-02-18 23:58, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> I may be a little simple-minded, but if we have a recommendation that
>>> receivers MUST be able to receive all packetizations of G.711 and OPUS
>>> up to 200 ms per packet, and that receivers should signal this by
>>> sending "a=maxptime:200" in their SDP, what situations exist where
>>> interoperability is not going to be achieved?
>> Interoperability is going to be achieve in the direction towards this
>> endpoint. The question is if we achieve interoperability in the
>> direction from that endpoint.
> 
> So, given that there is nothing in the G.711 specification about which
> sample sizes a G.711 receiver has to support - the right approach seems
> to be to amend the G.711 MIME registration with this information.

Yes, it would for the future. But considering the wide-spread deployment
of this payload format I don't see that having any short term effect on
the interoperability.

Also, the recommendations are actually context dependent. Thus, it is
not obvious that a single recommendation is suitable.

> 
> This is not a WebRTC issue; it is an absence of specification for the
> non-WebRTC devices that use G.711. The RTCWEB specifications can
> reasonably be expected to point to existing information about this
> issue; it is not reasonable (in my mind) that the RTCWEB WG decide what
> these values should be.
> 

I would argue for this consideration based on that this is done in the
WebRTC context, not any other context.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------