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

"Bogineni, Kalyani" <> Wed, 13 March 2013 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9FA21F8A41 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:31:56 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKj0mn3EY8Rc for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3782721F8CBB for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=0; q=dns/txt; s=prodmail; t=1363181506; x=1394717506; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; b=nRcHyEu0auo0MKOGIEh4w6lE8hi8umOh9GFMjOXieODjfRulThBot8X0 fUmG35HLVQTFhiCdMk9gQYtqgv+ZhX5GZPGeyljRkS4wdjqpQKpohSQO9 2l0+w+f2Ofyk7eyAZhsCc2SeEDYM8gIuUNict57vMwDaSrPv+5Xb53dFh 8=;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2013 06:31:44 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:31:42 -0400
From: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <>
To: 'Alex Agranovsky' <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:31:42 -0400
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: Ac4f7jhmTgrd5SE0S0e0buG3NBingwAAEspg
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4FB1AF8D91129944881538CDCC5347CF03206857EDOHDUB02EXCV33_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:03:38 -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 13:31:56 -0000

Mobile devices that run on 3GPP networks will already have AMR/AMR-WB codecs. Browsers should be
able to access those codecs on such devices. Does this make the proposal 'optional mandatory'?

Kalyani Bogineni

From: [] On Behalf Of Alex Agranovsky
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

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

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?



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<>


rtcweb mailing list<>