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

"Bogineni, Kalyani" <> Wed, 13 March 2013 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5025521F86D9 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzowS1xuovze for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F0621F8606 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=0; q=dns/txt; s=prodmail; t=1363187679; x=1394723679; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; b=lvZoWWUwcf2sxrdXgOj1EocdysylOG/pu1Vc3PrKi52v7MPVFjnRDGOa 6wq8lRczE6Ned+bxXORUasASBLENElofmTUZKR2TmRt+je+LYjfWO/cWC r+tl2E6J9GOhwC/obm6qxm/MuuO3XDDs5anfWsH6fRl85lHV5xzIi4Dp9 s=;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2013 08:14:35 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:14:16 -0400
From: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <>
To: 'Andrew Allen' <>, Xavier Marjou <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:14:16 -0400
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOH+y5qq47PO3D8ky8VwcKUkGl6pijrV3AgAALMDA=
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4FB1AF8D91129944881538CDCC5347CF03206857F0OHDUB02EXCV33_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:49:11 -0700
Cc: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:14:42 -0000

draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01 is based on the recommendation
and clarification from the Chair regarding the conclusion (included below).

Kalyani Bogineni


On Jan 28, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at> wrote:

> Hi,
> We chairs was considering inclusion in draft-ietf-webrtc-audio, but we
> didn't have any strong opinions on this. Based on that several WG
> participants thinks this should be an independent document, I thus
> decided that we will start out with an independent document. If the WG
> feels differently later we can always fold the text into the audio codec
> and processing requirements document.
> I would recommend that the individuals interested in contributing a
> codec writes an independent submission with focus on the codec
> considerations around the codec(s) they are interested in. Then we can
> merge this into a common WG document.
> Cheers
> Magnus


From: [] On Behalf Of Andrew Allen
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Xavier Marjou;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

I think this draft is not consistent with the scope stated by the RTCweb chairs in the decision on this topic  back in February

"Additional Relevant Codecs". That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific  contexts, along with a short description of the context for each. Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the  advantages and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
The current draft goes way beyond that decision in scope and uses MUST and SHOULD strength normative language instead of focusing on identifying the advantages and costs of the specific codecs and the use case contexts of where they are useful.

I think we should stick to the scope defined by the chairs and remove the normative language and focus on identifying the advantages and costs of the specific codecs and the use case contexts of where they are useful..


From:<> [] On Behalf Of Xavier Marjou
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

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?



PS: I will be ready to present the slides on Thursday if time permits it.

(c.f. )

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <<>> 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.



On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg)
<<>> 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 mailing list<>

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.