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

["Espen Berger (espeberg)" <[e-mail]>]

I support this statement. 

The reason to support AMR, AMR-WB and G722 is to have a minimal set of common audio codecs available to avoid transcoding in the common cases. 

-Espen 


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 14. mars 2013 13:36
To: Jean-Marc Valin
Cc: [e-mail]; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Hello 

The short list is aligned to what is specified in 3GPP (mobile) and CAT-iq (fixed). Check the related service specifications!
The short list (AMR, AMR-WB, G.722) is a minimal subset of codecs to minimize interop issues and transcoding costs for telco services. 
It's not a question of what's the favourite codec for a given application. It's interop with billions of mobile phones and with fixed terminals in legacy telephony services. 

Stéphane

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : jeudi 14 mars 2013 05:55 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS Cc : Andrew Allen; [e-mail]; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/13/2013 06:48 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> The reason is simply that AMR and AMR-WB are supported in billions of 
> devices !

Just curious, why exclude from the list other codecs with similar huge deployment? I can think of at least:
- - GSM-FR (mobile)
- - Speex (Flash)
- - G.729 (PSTN gateways)
- - iLBC (PSTN gateways)
- - G.726 (DECT)
- - SILK (original non-Opus version in Skype)

(sorry, if I missed someone's favorite codec in this list)

It's not at all clear to me what's so special that makes AMR, AMR-WB and G.722 different from the other codecs in the list above. Not that I insist on shipping G.729 :-)

Personally, I'd favor a draft that included a lot more codecs, describing for each one the benefits of supporting it. Implementers could then choose which of these they care about for their particular situation.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> Stéphane
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Andrew Allen 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> 23:41 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail] Cc : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN; [e-mail] Objet
> : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> 
> 
> No this wouldn't be acceptable to me.
> 
> I don't see a reason to push a particular set of Codecs over any other 
> set of codecs supported on the device. If the device supports the 
> codecs and they are available to the browser then we should recommend 
> that they be offered in the negotiation.
> 
> The marjou draft can advertise the merits and reasons why they are 
> good codecs to support.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013
> 05:14 PM Central Standard Time To: [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Cc: MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time	request	for
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> 
> Dear Markus
> 
> Thanks for your attempt to help !
> 
> Of course each Telco can handle this directly with vendors and 
> browsers manufacturers at business level. But I don't'think this need 
> of interoperability with mobile devices is specific to Orange.
> I think all mobile operators will have the same issue and this is why 
> standardization exist. It's most cost and time efficient to have one 
> common way forward for all the industry.
> 
> Then if the issue is that "conditional MUST/SHOULD are a too 
> complicated requirement. We could also live as a compromise with a 
> formulation that has already been suggested on the reflector:
> 
> "If other suitable audio codecs are available to the browser to use it 
> is recommended that they are also included in the offer in order to 
> maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for 
> audio transcoding" If possible with the addition of This is especially 
> the case for AMR, AMR-WB for interoperability with mobile devices and
> G.722 for interoperability with fixed DECT CAT-iq devices
> 
> Would it have one chance to reach consensus ?
> 
> I think this Group should at least make one small step so that the 
> interoperability issue with mobile terminals be not fully ignored in 
> the RTC Web specification considering the huge number of deployed 
> devices. At least something must be written on this !
> G.711 which is the only codec in addition to OPUS for interoperability 
> purpose is not a proper answer to this.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2013
> 22:37 À : PROUST Stephane OLNC/OLPS; [e-mail]; MARJOU 
> Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : [e-mail] Objet : RE: [rtcweb] Agenda time 
> request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> 
> Hi Stephane, Xavier,
> 
> I understand the intent of your proposal. I'm not sure if the IETF is 
> the best venue for you to pursue it, however. Perhaps you as a mobile 
> operator should rather set it as a requirement to your mobile device 
> platforms that they open up the APIs to AMR and AMR-WB and that at 
> least the in-built default browser needs to support it. If there are 
> enough operators setting such requirements directly to the device and 
> platform vendors, it probably has a bigger impact than an IETF RFC.
> Getting that support for user-installed additional browsers might be 
> more difficult, but most mobile device users stick with the default 
> browser anyway.
> 
> The RTCWEB codec document needs to definitely explain this case and 
> the benefits, but the conditional MUSTs or SHOULDs you are proposing 
> are perhaps a bit too complicated. Hmm, perhaps we need to do an 
> _informational_ RFC as something like "Recommendations for WebRTC on 
> Mobile Devices" addressing the codec and perhaps other issues, that 
> you could use as a reference in your requirements.
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext 
>> [e-mail] Sent: 13 March, 2013 21:37 To:
>> Jean-Marc Valin; MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio- codecs-for-interop-01
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> Our understanding is that the reason of the "no consensus" on 
>> additional recommended codecs was the additional costs for browsers.
>> The proposal is then to make these "MUST" fully conditional to the 
>> case of no (or very reduced) additional costs, when the codecs are 
>> already available on the device and when no additional license fee is 
>> required
>> 
>> We could even live with lower level of "requirements" with 
>> respectively May and Should (instead of Should and shall) but we 
>> think that this proposal is a way to take into account both browser 
>> manufacturers concerns on browsers costs and telcos concerns on 
>> transcoding costs and some other companies share this view.
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Message d'origine----- De : [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Jean-Marc Valin Envoyé
>> : mercredi 13 mars 2013 20:24 À : MARJOU Xavier OLNC/OLN Cc : 
>> [e-mail] Objet : Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for
>> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
>> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd really like to understand how the chairs coming to the conclusion 
> that there was *no consensus* on recommended codecs can result in a 
> draft that includes 3 MUSTs and 1 SHOULD. This draft effectively makes
> 3 new codecs MTI for a range of devices. I understand that it's an 
> individual draft and you can write whatever you like in there, but it 
> definitely goes against the result of the WG discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jean-Marc
> 
> On 03/13/2013 09:14 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] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> ___________________________________________________________ ___
>> 
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
>> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
>> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> 
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
>> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
>> this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France 
>> Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, 
>> changed or falsified. Thank you.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________
>
>  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this 
> message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom
> - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed 
> or falsified. Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________
>
>  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this 
> message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom
> - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed 
> or falsified. Thank you.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQVgzAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9fgYH/jcWfhRrvPM1hJ22YcE7eR0N
OZzP/RvSrUBiIA6kG+6+Hvn5Lp/tXd+LxUDp5L8B3Toce7TBBAYNJP3M2cr8N8It
SjVvPHtBNKEqhBLbI4FbAouvymNH4utjAWR+MmF9LRySPXZ9nxLN0A13TeUlpZxt
Jaxr/n9AWwkKOk6BIo1Xztbk26MObiGVLhCE+CPoHaHe29bKblPcphBXC935ymHS
SuF2DXiAq0iKwZoVOsLe3RIaGg+bjN7N2MXi3Vphr7cOQK+JpdxURDrvmPh7/L8R
ht1RJt928yl4fEjnKhSKJLd1J+gPBe6vnkSxUp89as03bLirLwN1G2giD3YzfLM=
=K56v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb