Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs

Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca> Thu, 18 July 2013 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBFF911E8132 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klkmw3UgHbz9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB4C11E813D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP56 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:25:49 -0700
X-EIP: [bliq7CIrszVS+SBLyQee+1Wn/+3UMQ7K]
X-Originating-Email: [coverdale@sympatico.ca]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP56EF44A5EA6EA09EDECAB9D0620@phx.gbl>
Received: from PaulNewPC ([184.147.37.119]) by BLU0-SMTP56.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:25:44 -0700
From: Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
To: "'Hutton, Andrew'" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, "'Bogineni, Kalyani'" <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>, "'Bo Burman'" <bo.burman@ericsson.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DEE3029@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <20130716170223.B5DD911E80D7@ietfa.amsl.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1164B89C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1164B89C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:25:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac6BN11IugiIgzm2TXug3PomYB8N3ABDXdRAACEuDYAAOgsjMA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2013 12:25:46.0518 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDF74B60:01CE83B1]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:25:56 -0000

Yes, this text has been around for a while. I also support it.

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Hutton, Andrew
>Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:46 AM
>To: Bogineni, Kalyani; 'Bo Burman'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs
>
>We appear to have been around this loop a number of times the text
>suggested here is exactly what was suggested by Andrew Allen back in
>January and I for one supported it them and still do - See
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06121.html.
>
>Not sure there was a definitive conclusion to that particular consensus
>call.
>
>Andy
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Bogineni, Kalyani
>> Sent: 16 July 2013 18:02
>> To: 'Bo Burman'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Cc: Bogineni, Kalyani
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs
>>
>> We support the following wording proposal from Bo Burman.
>>
>> "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".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kalyani Bogineni
>> Verizon
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Bo Burman
>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 11:15 AM
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: [rtcweb] Some thoughts on optional audio codecs
>>
>> Regarding the previous discussion on optional audio codecs in the
>> (currently expired) draft on RTCWEB audio codecs
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio/):
>>
>> I think most parties involved in WebRTC work, myself included, hope
>> and believe that it will be ubiquitous and easy to include real-time
>> media conversation functionality in nearly any web context. Since it
>> will be that easy, it can be expected that most web developers need
>> not be, and thus will not be, media specialists or very knowledgeable
>about codecs.
>>
>> The definition of RTCWEB MTI codecs ensures that communication is
>> possible since at least one codec will always be found, but it is not
>> possible to claim the resulting communication to be optimum for every
>> possible context.
>>
>> Even if WebRTC will be close to ubiquitous, there will for quite some
>> time likely be a desire to reach real-time media domains and devices
>> that were not originally designed for and thus are not optimized for
>> use with WebRTC. A communication device that is not designed solely
>> for WebRTC use will likely include functionality and codecs also for
>> its "native" domain.
>>
>> Any added cost of not being able to use existing "native" codecs will
>> vary both in amount and where the cost has to be taken. Eliminating it
>> is indeed an optimization, but the total cost savings may still be
>> significant.
>>
>> With the current design and to my understanding, it will be the
>> browser vendor's choice to add optional codecs, including any "native"
>> domain codecs.  The choice may possibly be delegated to individual web
>> developers making use of WebRTC functionality. A browser vendor will
>> arguably have to know each target platform to some extent, but it can
>> hardly be assumed that a web developer knows the capabilities of all
>> devices that will use the WebRTC-enabled site unless the browser can
>> provide the needed information. There is a risk that "native" codecs
>> in devices are not well handled, unless the motivations and methods to
>> make use of them are better specified.
>>
>> While any audio codecs besides the MTI ones are clearly optional, I
>> believe the suggested text addition on optional audio codecs to the
>> RTCWEB audio draft in Ticket #12
>> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/ticket/12#) to be too brief
>> considering the above.
>>
>> In that draft, I would prefer something more in line with:
>>
>> "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".
>>
>> Assuming that the browser vendor (or web developer) is sufficiently
>> concerned with codecs to read the audio codecs draft (or the
>> corresponding RFC to-be), the above text may, as a start, give some
>> added guidance why non-MTI codecs may be desirable to consider in
>> addition to the MTI ones.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bo
>>
>> Multimedia Technologies
>> Ericsson Research
>> Färögatan 6
>> SE-164 80, Kista, Sweden
>> www.ericsson.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb