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

["Bogineni, Kalyani" <[e-mail]>]

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

Regards,
Kalyani Bogineni

=====================

On Jan 28, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Allen
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:30 AM
To: Xavier Marjou; [e-mail]
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..

Andrew

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Xavier Marjou
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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?

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.