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

"Bogineni, Kalyani" <> Wed, 13 March 2013 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36B721F8E4E for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxOteuXSycPX for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3BD21F8E0C for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=0; q=dns/txt; s=prodmail; t=1363185489; x=1394721489; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; b=Q7XBE8PVD9c5jOAeovv0LMfEXwNcqNYvgT43sBmgpWNENs46avUE3AbL pmpgjXt3ArzgXwjdCethMJXFLWMBNwOw8KqLj68oE8Xa7bYDtzy9SC7GM rS7dyo8EfHFqLZGAQb1B6ORsV/0E6qWzOhqZChL4YdGxA3PPW9yU4L7Ex Y=;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Mar 2013 07:38:05 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:37:45 -0400
From: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <>
To: 'Ron' <>, Xavier Marjou <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:37:45 -0400
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: Ac4f9yCRd71SMvlWQgiwrhnVQCu1vQAAO4Ew
References: <> <> <> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:49:54 -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 14:38:09 -0000

There are 6.4 billion cellular connections worldwide.

Kalyani Bogineni

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:28 AM
To: Xavier Marjou;
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.


rtcweb mailing list