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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

High level thoughts from a browser implementor:

- The first target of WebRTC is the browser to browser case. These 
codecs do not add any capability to the browser to browser case, because 
OPUS is available.

- In the most common browser distribution models, it is an advantage to 
include at least a fallback version of all available features in the 
binary, so that the set of features available to the user is constant. 
This means that the browser either incurs licensing costs or support 
costs (to support the variability of user scenarios).

- The inclusion of royalty-required codecs severely crimps the 
distribution models available for browsers, which makes it even harder 
for new browsers to enter the market than it already is, and the WG 
charter we agreed on says that we "prefer non-encumbered codecs".

We can discuss the cost of transcoding separately, but the cost to the 
browsers of extra codecs, especially royalty-encumbered ones, should not 
be underestimated.

On 03/13/2013 02:14 PM, 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 <[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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb