Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

[Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>]

I think the if available to the browser text applies to all codecs regardless of whether there are billions or only hundreds of other devices that support a codec.

It shoulld be appreciated that the number of devices supporting a particular codec are snapshots in time and this will likely change - either increasing or decreasing in the future and the specifications we write now should be as future proof as possible and not have a built in best before date.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 05:48 PM Central Standard Time
To: Andrew Allen; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Agenda time	request	for	draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

The reason is simply that AMR and AMR-WB are supported in billions of devices !

Stéphane


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Andrew Allen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 23:41
À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01


No this wouldn't be acceptable to me. 

I don't see a reason to push a particular set of Codecs over any other set of codecs supported on the device. If the device supports the codecs and they are available to the browser then we should recommend that they be offered in the negotiation.

The marjou draft can advertise the merits and reasons why they are good codecs to support.


----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 05:14 PM Central Standard Time
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time	request	for	draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Dear Markus

Thanks for your attempt to help !

Of course each Telco can handle this directly with vendors and browsers manufacturers at business level. But I don't'think this need of interoperability with mobile devices is specific to Orange. I think all mobile operators will have the same issue and this is why standardization exist. It's most cost and time efficient to have one common way forward for all the industry.

Then if the issue is that "conditional MUST/SHOULD are a too complicated requirement. We could also live as a compromise with a formulation that has already been suggested on the reflector: 

"If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for audio transcoding"
If possible with the addition of
This is especially the case for AMR, AMR-WB for interoperability with mobile devices and G.722 for interoperability with fixed DECT CAT-iq devices

Would it have one chance to reach consensus ?

I think this Group should at least make one small step so that the interoperability issue with mobile terminals be not fully ignored in the RTC Web specification considering the huge number of deployed devices. At least something must be written on this ! G.711 which is the only codec in addition to OPUS for interoperability purpose is not a proper answer to this.

Stéphane

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 22:37 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; [e-mail]; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : [e-mail] Objet : RE: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Hi Stephane, Xavier,

I understand the intent of your proposal. I'm not sure if the IETF is the best venue for you to pursue it, however. Perhaps you as a mobile operator should rather set it as a requirement to your mobile device platforms that they open up the APIs to AMR and AMR-WB and that at least the in-built default browser needs to support it. If there are enough operators setting such requirements directly to the device and platform vendors, it probably has a bigger impact than an IETF RFC. Getting that support for user-installed additional browsers might be more difficult, but most mobile device users stick with the default browser anyway.

The RTCWEB codec document needs to definitely explain this case and the benefits, but the conditional MUSTs or SHOULDs you are proposing are perhaps a bit too complicated. Hmm, perhaps we need to do an _informational_ RFC as something like "Recommendations for WebRTC on Mobile Devices" addressing the codec and perhaps other issues, that you could use as a reference in your requirements.  

Markus


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>Behalf Of ext [e-mail]
>Sent: 13 March, 2013 21:37
>To: Jean-Marc Valin; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
>draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-
>codecs-for-interop-01
>
>Hello
>
>Our understanding is that the reason of the "no consensus" on 
>additional recommended codecs was the additional costs for browsers.
>The proposal is then to make these "MUST" fully conditional to the case 
>of no (or very reduced) additional costs, when the codecs are already 
>available on the device and when no additional license fee is required
>
>We could even live with lower level of "requirements" with respectively 
>May and Should (instead of Should and shall) but we think that this 
>proposal is a way to take into account both browser manufacturers 
>concerns on browsers costs and telcos concerns on transcoding costs and 
>some other companies share this view.
>
>Stéphane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la 
>part de Jean-Marc Valin Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 20:24 À : MARJOU 
>Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : [e-mail] Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time 
>request for
>draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hi,
>
>I'd really like to understand how the chairs coming to the conclusion 
>that there was *no consensus* on recommended codecs can result in a 
>draft that includes 3 MUSTs and 1 SHOULD. This draft effectively makes
>3 new codecs MTI for a range of devices. I understand that it's an 
>individual draft and you can write whatever you like in there, but it 
>definitely goes against the result of the WG discussion.
>
>Cheers,
>
>	Jean-Marc
>
>On 03/13/2013 09:14 AM, Xavier Marjou wrote:
>> Here is a summary of the
>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00 presentation that I 
>> had prepared for yesterday's session:
>>
>> - The co-authors want to underline that non-WebRTC voice endpoints 
>> usually use one of the following codecs: AMR, AMR-WB or G.722, which 
>> will result in massive transcoding when there will be communications 
>> between WebRTC endpoints and non-WebRTC endpoints.
>>
>> - On one side, transcoding is bad for many reasons discussed in the 
>> draft (cost issues, intrinsic quality degradation, degraded 
>> interactivity, fallback from HD to G.711...);
>>
>> - On the other side, it is recognized that implementing additional 
>> codecs in the browsers can generate additional costs.
>>
>> - In order to reach a compromise, we would like to add some text in 
>> the WG draft draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio providing incentives for the 
>> browser to use these three codecs: make them mandatory to implement 
>> when there is no cost impact on the browser (e.g. if codec already 
>> installed, paid by the device vendor...).
>>
>> Any opinion on that?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>> PS: I will be ready to present the slides on Thursday if time permits 
>> it.
>>
>> (c.f. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-rtcweb-6.pdf
>> )
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Magnus and I discussed this this morning, and we encourage you to 
>> prepare something.  If the discussion of working group last call 
>> items runs short, we may be able to fit this in at that time or at 
>> the end of day one if its full agenda his finished.  This is not a 
>> commitment, however, so please try and get discussion on the list on 
>> the points from the draft you feel need resolution.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg) 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to request agenda time for:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The document  presents use-cases underlining why WebRTC needs
>> AMR-WB,  AMR
>>> and G.722 as additional relevant voice codecs to satisfactorily 
>>> ensure interoperability with existing systems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A 10-minute time slot should be sufficient for presentation and
>> discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Espen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb
>mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb
>mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb
>mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQNJZAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9vNYIAL64nPUsZfKfxSYteqTQRPmg
>CzVXzr8GEBtR8gugL6KO5Lxgux+3fYKm7BJHirZyyCF1uPWIvXNevE2ad1KvHFwC
>yT9XlzgiiHX79SOEyd3bIn9thycBXBSAAiqyCkz5E/eEYskPFQ4e5AVDezjjvMGF
>L1Fx1PtsYuMRWEXZNB8wglH9sk3xeWe02o9s4TqLxwiseTS3CJ1kTwoHfIo5e4o
>X
>26NMjBBiEy/eKK9qtmry9Octjr93OgtFVavPoXN/sNqCW8u8kreVOSxeegJ233n9
>WQYhkctybnS22RTjbu3W6mZafpyOGi41rIzdGyUocmTelsFfT3hban5OU+1kQR
>w=
>=P8Jl
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>___________________________________________________________
>___________________________________________________________
>___
>
>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
>exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par 
>erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que 
>les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
>d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
>ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
>information that may be protected by law; they should not be 
>distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
>delete this message and its attachments.
>As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for 
>messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>Thank you.
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.