Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

[Paul Coverdale <[e-mail]>]

I support Stephane's proposal for option 1. It makes good sense,
particularly for the case where AMR and AMR-WB are already implemented in
mobile devices - there are no additional licensing issues and it simplifies
interoperability.

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of [e-mail]
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:33 AM
>To: Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
>Audio Codecs
>
>It is clear from the discussions on the rtcweb e-mail reflector that the
>only additional codecs to be considered are limited to the following
>very small subset of 3 codecs: AMR, AMR-WB and G.722.
>In addition to G.711, these 3 codecs cover almost all legacy devices
>dedicated to voice services. They are consequently needed and sufficient
>to be supported by WebRTC to make it an attractive and future proof
>technology for usage in all environments including mobile and for
>interoperability use cases with most of all legacy voice terminals.
>
>AMR and AMR-WB are indeed the most widely supported voice codecs in
>hundreds of millions of legacy mobile devices.
>G.722 is royalty free (including a Packet Loss Concealment solution
>provided in ITU-T Software Tool Library) and is the codec used for HD
>Voice / DECT-Cat IQ fixed devices
>
>Furthermore, considering that the reason for excluding AMR and AMR-WB
>from WebRTC was the licensing issue, there is no reason to NOT support
>AMR-WB and AMR at WebRTC level if these codecs are already implemented
>on the device.
>
>Therefore I support option 1 and propose the following specification
>according this:
>AMR-WB, AMR and G.722 are RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT by WebRTC end-points
>AMR and AMR-WB MUST BE supported at WebRTC level by WebRTC end-points on
>3GPP mobile devices already implementing AMR and AMR-WB (*)
>
>(*) note that the way these codecs are supported at RTC Web level is
>left open to implementors: either by a WebRTC specific software
>implementation of these codecs or by using APIs to access hardward
>implementation.
>
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part
>de Magnus Westerlund Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2012 09:30 À :
>[e-mail] Objet : [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting
>Recommended Audio Codecs
>
>WG,
>
>As an outcome of the Vancouver IETF meeting codec discussions we did
>promise to run a call for consensus regarding if the WG was interested
>in specifying a small set of recommended audio codecs. We are sorry this
>has been delayed until now.
>
>The question for the call of consensus is between two options.
>
>1) Run a process in the WG to select and specify a small set of
>audio/speech codecs that would be RECOMMNEDED to implement by a WebRTC
>end-points
>
>2) Do nothing and let the already specified Mandatory to Implement Audio
>codecs be the only audio codecs mentioned in the WebRTC specification.
>
>Please indicate your position by January 16th 2013.
>
>Regards
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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