Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Tue, 28 August 2012 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 3812D11E80F6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 9vL4XNA+YK69 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01AF421F8602 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q7SJQLEV018854; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:26:27 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:26:26 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.220]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:26:25 +0200
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <fluffy@cisco.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
Thread-Index: AQHNe9LENUMF/Hj3nEmo2lnRJlNz25dshSCw
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:26:24 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7622933A8@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E2843EA-EBB9-40B3-898C-6B5216FAE7A5@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.163.23.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2012 19:26:26.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[04510210:01CD8553]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:26:37 -0000

Hi,

I'm having here both my individual thoughs and I'm also conveying the views of Nokia in more general. 

(as individual)

First of all, my feeling is that we may be trying to make the codec decisions pre-maturely. Codecs are after all a negotiable and well understood component in RTCWeb. There are more critical things to get right to ensure interoperability and success of RTCWeb. By my judgement it will take at least one more year to deliver them in IETF or W3C. So I believe we still have time to make the final call about codecs even for the "1.0" version. With new codecs such as Opus one more year may bring more information about its quality, IPR status and so on.

Many people in the WG seem to consider unencumberment of codecs as essential. Opus does have several non-RF declarations on it, and there are many players who have not taken part in the IETF Codec WG and thus have no disclosure obligation on their potential IPR. So if the WG wants to mandate a wideband codec at this point, it seems to me that G.722 is the logical choice. (Opus is more efficient and if it indeed will enjoy RF status, I'm sure it will become the "de facto" RTCWeb codec in many environments.)

So, in summary, I think the WG should either not fix the mandatory codecs yet, or if that for some reason needs to be done right now, the MTI audio codecs should be G.711 and G.722.  

(speaking for Nokia)

Nokia thinks that there are complexity issues with the Opus codec. There are also possible IPR risks associated with the "royalty-free" nature of Opus. We do not recommend Opus to be taken as a mandatory codec for RTCWeb at this point. From high quality low bit rate and mobile applications point of view the 3GPP AMR-WB codec (also known as ITU-T G.722.2) is the most preferable for us. For interoperability with implementations restricted to unencumbered codecs, we prefer G.711 and G.722. 

Regards,
	Markus


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of ext Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>Sent: 16 August, 2012 20:16
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
>
>
>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