[rtcweb] Ericsson's position on codecs

Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com> Tue, 24 July 2012 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF1A21F8643 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NiEZFj9sdG6l for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD2D21F864B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f916d000000bfb-86-500e6dfaa14b
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 38.7C.03067.AFD6E005; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:42:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se ([]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:42:13 +0200
From: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:42:12 +0200
Thread-Topic: Ericsson's position on codecs
Thread-Index: Ac1pgJnvVo+eDslsSZO3tDyeasoaZg==
Message-ID: <05F760EF51FA6A4F804F9759C239313A45E750C845@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6vXL4Ag4f/RC3W/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxs+nk5kL3gpXvFk5mb2BsUmgi5GDQ0LARGLhOrcuRk4gU0zi wr31bCC2kMApRolrs9i7GLmA7IWMEptXvWUGSbAJaEjM33GXEcQWEVCXuPzwAjuIzSKgKnHu yU1WEFtYQE3iz9O/LBA12hL3l71jgrD1JCYdvwU2h1cgXKLh5n2wGkYBWYn73++B2cwC4hK3 nsxngjhIQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1gh6mUkTi36zwpRrydxY+oUNghbW2LZwtdQ8wUlTs58wjKB UXgWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYzCuYmZOenl5nqpRZnJxcX5eXrFqZsYgcF9cMtvgx2Mm+6L HWKU5mBREufVU93vLySQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoFRnz3sc3S5wOEUbp/ebb2S vRFB1rJ9ZXn57xI6C/xLcs0+PL26xrSATW/uZLNdusXtSR8nu0uu8P68+HyqN5MF/6b60FS7 zGMHfrd6BmlKXmj/sGv7ouIg6yfVx2fN2XZg2yoGHoHwhbVZXLnfjeSDllorqj08aXEmWiX/ kZTKrvX33W59TVBiKc5INNRiLipOBADWDcT4PAIAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Ericsson's position on codecs
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: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:42:20 -0000


The question of which codecs that should be supported in WebRTC [RTCWEB WG] has been discussed a long time with good opinions from different viewpoints. It will again be a subject in the Vancouver meeting and therefore we feel a need to recap Ericsson's position.

We believe that H.264 video codec should be a mandatory codec (at least one of what may be several): it is a good video codec, backed by a large vendor community and with a considerable footprint in end points. The patent landscape and the licensing situation is well known by now, which is nice in itself. Also, H.264 support is a requirement in some regulatory frameworks, such as emergency services, and we feel it would be preferable if WebRTC media framework can step-by-step consider such requirements, starting with the video codec.

Looking into the future a bit, we see H.265/HEVC video codec as a strong candidate to include in the default set, but we think it is too early to mandate it at this point. 

For audio, the situation is that we believe G.719 has a role for high quality audio in areas with no bandwidth restrictions or limited/no risk of blocking (packet loss or dropped connection). AMR narrow-band is playing a key role in mobile telephony and has a huge footprint. This makes it a candidate for being a default codec (one of them) for audio streams in mobile WebRTC implementations.

There is also a need for a high quality voice codec for situations with varying bandwidth, and we recognize that Opus is a candidate. We would however for the future also like to recommend that IETF include AMR-WB and EVS, since we expect them to be available in mobile chipsets.

This is written in absence of my colleagues who are more close to the codec technologies and who, had they been available and not on vacation, surely would have written the above in a better way. However, we hope it serves the intended purpose, namely to clarify Ericsson's position in the IETF WebRTC codec selection discussion.

Best Regards

Bo Burman

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7141311
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949021
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: bo.burman@ericsson.com