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

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

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'?

Regards,
Kalyani Bogineni


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alex Agranovsky
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:25 AM
To: [e-mail]
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.

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 <[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb