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

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6482521F86A8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.776, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T7feDFknOI9g for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBE821F8EA8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id dr13so1226368wgb.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9dEZvE9ZjqCKwY12gBc6NiugIv6bMe7/ozOOLVgloXs=; b=dOUupdDrl2oMQhSAb/N/MtNs6VKl2nNzFxxL1Kg5YH8c06+nPAZIZBfMY6Lp56+57G rXchmKQiFhyPNjDbXBTMUzBem08Q1XDi4HrGGFEftgP27rTu9COyZ3B7Mo9tgk8k1mn/ gp57R/N7GNt5qrxojFoD81aBdXx/CyjAJqUokYioWZLr9wxuBAtCecYIaLT18YaANpSm KaKwZUQGAthdOCzflsFRo2LKpEjMQkmyKuuGuprpNp0sbHTRLj+J3bLVJ3qNyJp7rNx5 o2MzOjseGBqchFPQ3UQZ3Ce9hJwhDCw/KEOE9oG+E39nZGvykOOo2oYMJt3J+omuLF8f /SOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.183.4 with SMTP id ei4mr28744199wic.21.1363198660000; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.20.35 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.20.35 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130313143808.DB3BD21F8E0C@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz> <20130313143808.DB3BD21F8E0C@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQJ_pi5QOKp+ifcGHM1prD2cx9oxcBPxxkZB0VPZYmZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@verizonwireless.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c22a2ee3441804d7d26b87
Cc: Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:17:43 -0000

On Mar 13, 2013 7:50 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <
Kalyani.Bogineni@verizonwireless.com> wrote:
>
> There are 6.4 billion cellular connections worldwide.
>
> http://www.3gpp.org/3GPP-Family-2012-Statistics
>

Then it will really be transformational for them to support Opus as a
webrtc requirement. I look forward to all these Opus devices

CB

> Regards,
> Kalyani Bogineni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ron
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: Xavier Marjou; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:14:30AM -0400, 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.
>
> "Massive" seems a little overstated here.  Any system providing a gateway
service to or between 'low bandwidth' devices is almost surely going to
support more than just WebRTC, and is going to have to transcode for most
or all of them anyway.  Adding an extra burden to WebRTC, especially one
that would only ever apply to some small subset of users, wouldn't appear
to make a significant difference in the requirements for such a system.
>
>
> > - 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...);
>
> Are you aware of the listening tests presented to the CODEC WG?
>
> In particular the ones that show Opus->AMR and AMR->Opus is not
significantly worse than the intrinsic quality degradation suffered by
using AMR alone?
>
> Or that Opus->G.711->AMR is actually better than AMR->G.711->AMR ?
>
>
> > - 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...).
>
> Since there is never no cost impact to supporting additional features,
that would imply this is never mandatory ...
>
> In which case why bother half-saying otherwise?
>
> I thought it was already quite clear all along, that people who want to
or have their own good reasons to are free to implement any other codecs
they please - and that they already have, and certainly will continue to do
so?
>
> > Any opinion on that?
>
> I don't really see much point to handwaving about particular niche codecs
for particular niche uses unless this is going to be some sort of separate
informational document, that is kept up to date with changes in all the
niches that people have an interest in.
>
> That might be useful.  But 'mandating' something that the people who will
do it were going to do it anyway, and the people who were not are still not
going to do, doesn't seem to add any real value here to either users or
implementers.  It won't explain anything to anybody that they don't already
know if it is of any interest to them.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb