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

[<[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of ext [e-mail]
>Sent: 13 March, 2013 21:37
>To: Jean-Marc Valin; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
>Cc: [e-mail]
>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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part
>de Jean-Marc Valin Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013 20:24 À : MARJOU Xavier
>OLNC/OLN Cc : [e-mail] Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
>draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>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 <[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
>>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQNJZAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9vNYIAL64nPUsZfKfxSYteqTQRPmg
>CzVXzr8GEBtR8gugL6KO5Lxgux+3fYKm7BJHirZyyCF1uPWIvXNevE2ad1KvHFwC
>yT9XlzgiiHX79SOEyd3bIn9thycBXBSAAiqyCkz5E/eEYskPFQ4e5AVDezjjvMGF
>L1Fx1PtsYuMRWEXZNB8wglH9sk3xeWe02o9s4TqLxwiseTS3CJ1kTwoHfIo5e4o
>X
>26NMjBBiEy/eKK9qtmry9Octjr93OgtFVavPoXN/sNqCW8u8kreVOSxeegJ233n9
>WQYhkctybnS22RTjbu3W6mZafpyOGi41rIzdGyUocmTelsFfT3hban5OU+1kQR
>w=
>=P8Jl
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb