Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 29 August 2012 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 C29B521F8629 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.335
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMYaAqT9gUZX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D5321F8567 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4787839E28B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:21:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ec2bPhRfhbLf for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:21:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7F6A39E0F0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:21:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <503DED41.7080906@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:21:53 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio 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: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:22:33 -0000

Since the number of people stating their opinion has been large, I'll 
just reiterate the opinion I had (and hummed for) in Vancouver:

Opus and G.711 should be mandatory to implement for RTCWEB.

Since the question of whether there's any value to making the decision 
now has been raised:

The first interoperable products implementing RTCWEB are shipping within 
a very short timeframe. Those first implementations will shape the 
market for what's actually used in practice.
In order to allow applications requiring high quality sound to be among 
the first ones developed, those first products need to include a common 
choice of a high quality codec.

Having the RTCWEB WG state as a decision that this codec should be Opus 
helps in making sure these products ship with Opus.

The time to decide is now.

                   Harald

[Note - the same logic applies to video codecs, but I've accepted that 
it's impossible to make a consensus decision at this time on that issue. 
We'll just live with the consequences of that.]

On 08/16/2012 07:15 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> At the last meeting we took a hum on selecting Opus and G.711 as the mediatory to implement audio codecs. If there is any new opinions please send them to the list by August 30th, after which the chairs will make a determination of consensus.
>
> Thanks,
> Cullen
>
> Please note that the following IPR disclosure have been made on these codecs. They can be found at
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
>
>
> 2010-11-07	
> • ID # 1445
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (1)"
> 2010-11-07	
> • ID # 1446
> "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-00"
> 2010-11-12	
> • ID # 1447
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-00 and draft-ietf-codec-description-00 (2)"
> 2011-03-23	
> • ID # 1520
> "Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-27	
> • ID # 1524
> "Xiph.Org Foundation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-29	
> • ID # 1526
> "Broadcom Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-03-29	
> • ID # 1525
> "Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-05"
> 2011-07-23	
> • ID # 1602
> "Skype Limited's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-07"
> 2012-01-25	
> • ID # 1670
> "Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-10"
> 2012-03-12	
> • ID # 1712
> "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (1)"
> 2012-04-02	
> • ID # 1741
> "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-11 (2)"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb