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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 5468011E80FE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVDhvmvArss2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668CF11E80F8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id CE79E1EB854E; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:41:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.94]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:41:58 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@verizonwireless.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOIBch9wojYuxtPEungoltqcm2fpij9FlA
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:41:57 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06899848@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz> <20130313143808.DB3BD21F8E0C@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD6AjGQJ_pi5QOKp+ifcGHM1prD2cx9oxcBPxxkZB0VPZYmZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQJ_pi5QOKp+ifcGHM1prD2cx9oxcBPxxkZB0VPZYmZNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF06899848MCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
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, 13 Mar 2013 18:42:01 -0000

Hi All,

I thought the suggested text that came from Andrew Allen a couple of months ago was a good compromise.

I repeat it below.



On 17 January 2013 18:00 Andrew Allen wrote:

>

> I would propose:      :

>

> "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"

>

> This is enough to make implementers think about the transcoding issue.

>



Regards

Andy


From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
Sent: 13 March 2013 14:18
To: Bogineni, Kalyani
Cc: Xavier Marjou; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01


On Mar 13, 2013 7:50 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@verizonwireless.com<mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@verizonwireless.com>> wrote:
>
> There are 6.4 billion cellular connections worldwide.
>
> http://www.3gpp.org/3GPP-Family-2012-Statistics
>

Then it will really be transformational for them to support Opus as a webrtc requirement. I look forward to all these Opus devices

CB

> Regards,
> Kalyani Bogineni
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:28 AM
> To: Xavier Marjou; rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> 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.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb