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

Alex Agranovsky <alex@voxeo.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@voxeo.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 B058221F8C96 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 5LvOUhzDSlZS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D69A21F8C9D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-1127.meeting.ietf.org (account alex@voxeo.com [130.129.17.39] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTPSA id 130085870 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:25:11 +0000
Message-ID: <51407E37.7090307@voxeo.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:25:11 -0400
From: Alex Agranovsky <alex@voxeo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080408010702010104080408"
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:25:15 -0000

It's hard to imagine a situation in which AMR/AMR-WB will be available 
at no cost to the browser, considering royalties involved.

http://www.voiceage.com/amr_faqs.php#11

And if we limit the requirement only to those who have paid ... it's not 
really 'mandatory'.

- Alex

On 3/13/13 9:14 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