IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed resolution on comfort noise

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sat, 09 January 2016 01:29 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D781B2D30 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBrObl6YjvoK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E75FC1B2D2D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k1so200819678vkb.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=8c2+HbIaLXCCzSbiZGrycMcDsiBsEnBVRVOZoMS2Hbs=; b=VAntDxG+AkJCtMF+iW/7LAcQEa4r69oVmSRZ0nLGUCm4QEqsDzpfYZkcJOwv5zNzm5 J85pTWniLezkm+RG5K0wU8cQQ2xZXvi2vkH1W5XjMjEKlkDbsDXtZSwuOGLQcfckTQ2l zbiy/FUjpZFfbXAdeE2fAWB3pFCiGirm65JMJKBBl8cTboNs/G4iCsSSm8+yABQOrvtt YUFoNnkTpEAL3oKC25hs/EQOLAjl8uNINjeutd7kPlV9JZo9hg5xZNuIFkPo2/iP5lNK aq+j+2/A6j27XMLInPcuodSoFHqTITJL/JXp2iH4YIBtWJZFUhNE9mrDUZ6Xo+qjir9o 3/LQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8c2+HbIaLXCCzSbiZGrycMcDsiBsEnBVRVOZoMS2Hbs=; b=jPSDD12sNM/0Wsv48d1TFoo1dMU5R19hWVLBrPQ4INdl6AEeAtLpG4Ke/sA9a8TVCc yX9MWmQHQohJL3N5eN1W0MsuXhHIZs2i2jw3qgAyJAmrTtMykh3XUmG/P65PrrqJcuw/ XDa9OghrWnia3JkVr25dj706CEEFKc9HOL4T7RiYeNBshDobk4OdCcGwMB9Q2kyTXAkZ rb8WLx1LIQgPJBRueDlXFxMlmJlWB7PXplD88gwzYWSNBuPRIe7lxd/SAfFa7Ft0cnN8 F2bmKZlUZiWJMZovCmNfYYPS5UeL1G95H5A1tFqcxgia8E9FUE3Vsg1gJP0hpduLFHJJ TXgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4U0McDELl1L3jGGlT9CcYFhdY3nkgX11GU934DT/V8+nxAadSQ+TRjJrwwWqLk+b5GRV+2qcRM+wOVR86mF1dMDkVyKqHMXNP1hPUttKnI3iLdCw=
X-Received: by 10.31.149.78 with SMTP id x75mr65325835vkd.103.1452302997015; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.198.132 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:29:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <566EB695.4080607@alvestrand.no>
References: <CA+9kkMDE39Pjb+bKBy_th=auZx2Z2Cp0qrH98Rhu6kbi=z-gEA@mail.gmail.com> <566EB695.4080607@alvestrand.no>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:29:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-18mO52OwXS017R0AR3fLqqzbhXHvkxigCHOxre4hv_cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114267483e9b7e0528dca45a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/IqAX5FRf_zGQOWI8yXfUSl4tImc>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed resolution on comfort noise
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 01:29:59 -0000

I support this resolution.

To Felix's point, this text just says that WebRTC endpoints MUST support
CN, not MUST use it. Applications are free to not offer it (via the
VoiceActivityDetection parameter).

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> I support this resolution.
>
> I note that there's material in this discussion for an extensive treatise
> on the pros and cons of offering CN at gateways. If someone wishes to
> extract this as a PR against the -gateways draft, the draft is at
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/gateways.
>
>
>
> On 12/10/2015 11:14 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> After reading the discussion on the comfort noise issue, it appears that
> one way forward might be to adjust this language:
>
> "comfort noise (CN).  Receivers MUST support RFC3389 CN for streams
> encoded with G.711 or any other supported codec that  does not provide its
> own CN.”
>
> to say instead
>
> "comfort noise (CN).  WebRTC endpoints MUST support RFC3389 CN for streams
> encoded with G.711 or any other supported codec that  does not provide its
> own CN.”
>
> This would still allow non-WebRTC endpoints to omit CN support, while
> retaining the mandate for WebRTC endpoints.
>
> Does this resolve the issue?
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email