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

Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 04:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
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 EFA8421F8E47 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 gFN0cvtRPH9D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F3721F8E46 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.255.57] (unknown [216.189.219.66]) (Authenticated sender: jvalin@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30DA7F2111; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51415833.1050503@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:55:15 -0400
From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stephane.proust@orange.com
References: <31611_1363212891_5140FA5B_31611_17197_1_35788a76-852d-49ce-8987-d2be2f21fcaf@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D28EA3@XMB104ADS.rim.net> <3246_1363214890_5141022A_3246_1976_1_34a49fde-fad7-4a0a-8b01-9d48a5b6eeab@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <3246_1363214890_5141022A_3246_1976_1_34a49fde-fad7-4a0a-8b01-9d48a5b6eeab@PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
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, 14 Mar 2013 04:55:28 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/13/2013 06:48 PM, stephane.proust@orange.com wrote:
> The reason is simply that AMR and AMR-WB are supported in billions
> of devices !

Just curious, why exclude from the list other codecs with similar huge
deployment? I can think of at least:
- - GSM-FR (mobile)
- - Speex (Flash)
- - G.729 (PSTN gateways)
- - iLBC (PSTN gateways)
- - G.726 (DECT)
- - SILK (original non-Opus version in Skype)

(sorry, if I missed someone's favorite codec in this list)

It's not at all clear to me what's so special that makes AMR, AMR-WB
and G.722 different from the other codecs in the list above. Not that
I insist on shipping G.729 :-)

Personally, I'd favor a draft that included a lot more codecs,
describing for each one the benefits of supporting it. Implementers
could then choose which of these they care about for their particular
situation.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> Stéphane
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Andrew Allen
> [mailto:aallen@blackberry.com] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> 23:41 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com;
> jmvalin@mozilla.com Cc : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN; rtcweb@ietf.org 
> 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: stephane.proust@orange.com
> [mailto:stephane.proust@orange.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013
> 05:14 PM Central Standard Time To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>om>; jmvalin@mozilla.com
> <jmvalin@mozilla.com> Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
> <xavier.marjou@orange.com>om>; rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org> 
> 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 : Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> [mailto:Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> 22:37 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; jmvalin@mozilla.com; MARJOU
> Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : rtcweb@ietf.org 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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
>> stephane.proust@orange.com Sent: 13 March, 2013 21:37 To:
>> Jean-Marc Valin; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org 
>> 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 : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jean-Marc Valin
>> Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 20:24 À : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
>> Cc : rtcweb@ietf.org Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request
>> for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>> 
> 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
>>>> <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> 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) 
>>>> <espeberg@cisco.com <mailto:espeberg@cisco.com>> 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
>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb
> mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto: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
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________ 
>> ___________________________________________________________ ___
>> 
>> 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 rtcweb@ietf.org 
>> 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 rtcweb@ietf.org 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.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQVgzAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9fgYH/jcWfhRrvPM1hJ22YcE7eR0N
OZzP/RvSrUBiIA6kG+6+Hvn5Lp/tXd+LxUDp5L8B3Toce7TBBAYNJP3M2cr8N8It
SjVvPHtBNKEqhBLbI4FbAouvymNH4utjAWR+MmF9LRySPXZ9nxLN0A13TeUlpZxt
Jaxr/n9AWwkKOk6BIo1Xztbk26MObiGVLhCE+CPoHaHe29bKblPcphBXC935ymHS
SuF2DXiAq0iKwZoVOsLe3RIaGg+bjN7N2MXi3Vphr7cOQK+JpdxURDrvmPh7/L8R
ht1RJt928yl4fEjnKhSKJLd1J+gPBe6vnkSxUp89as03bLirLwN1G2giD3YzfLM=
=K56v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----