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

Andrew Allen <> Wed, 13 March 2013 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE74F21F8DBB for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.31
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a7z9-FBID3Xm for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800D721F8CEF for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a41282f-b7fa06d000002431-42-51408d7d14d4
Received: from ( []) by (SBG) with SMTP id 01.05.09265.E7D80415; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:30:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([fe80::2494:a63d:e3:723b]) by ([fe80::2c7e:1215:d554:35b5%20]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:30:21 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <>
To: Xavier Marjou <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOH+y5qq47PO3D8ky8VwcKUkGl6pijrV3A
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:30:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D2870FXMB104ADSrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrNKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5ZyvpVvX6xBoMGulkMXaf+3sFke2rmV2 YPJYsuQnk0fLs5NsAUxRDYw2SYklZcGZ6Xn6djaJeXn5JYklqQopqcXJtko+qemJOQoBRZll icmVCi6Zxck5iZm5qUVKCpkptkomSgoFOYnJqbmpeSW2SokFBal5KUp2XAoYwAaoLDNPITUv OT8lMy/dVskz2F/XwsLUUtdQyU43oZMnY/v0M+wFH3Mqjt5bxd7A2BvXxcjJISFgIvHuTTcj hC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYGVjBL/5sxlgnA2M0r8//IErIpNQEti/+HpTCC2iECwxMG9W1hBbGGB eInze+cyQ8QTJP58/s0OYRtJLD+8EcxmEVCVOD3vDFgvr4CHxKKnM8F6hQRuMUqcm1QMYnMK BEo8argEFmcUkJXYffY6WD2zgLjErSfzmSAuFZBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T9WCFtR4nFLNwtEfb7E 1DMH2SB2CUqcnPmEZQKjyCwko2YhKZuFpAwiriOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfMMPaZA4+ZkMUXMLKv YhTMzSg2MDNIzkvWK8rM1ctLLdnECEogjhr6Oxjfvrc4xCjAwajEw2vV6hAoxJpYVlyZe4hR goNZSYR3eS5QiDclsbIqtSg/vqg0J7X4EGMQMLQmMktxJ+cDk1teSbyxgQGRHCVxXpFA0UAh gXRgIstOTS1ILYIZysTBCbKUS0qkGJiOUosSS0sy4kFJM74YmDalGhgPbloXJno8bfG75YvS dbkd81fv4DYKuegRfVt20d8fVa5TTL4U2LzQUgiZJWr7LaiTi+u5Asvm1lPZ6x8zOT2JK99t Fth67rK4bcYmTa/z6sYzd4vv6X8Wd0TM/7hcwZWmL/O+/lpVKWB67yOT8LIldRc52jUv/RP7 YbduwjPLGwKZy5Z/SedTYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA9ide424DAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:30:34 -0000

I think this draft is not consistent with the scope stated by the RTCweb chairs in the decision on this topic  back in February

"Additional Relevant Codecs". That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific  contexts, along with a short description of the context for each. Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the  advantages and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
The current draft goes way beyond that decision in scope and uses MUST and SHOULD strength normative language instead of focusing on identifying the advantages and costs of the specific codecs and the use case contexts of where they are useful.

I think we should stick to the scope defined by the chairs and remove the normative language and focus on identifying the advantages and costs of the specific codecs and the use case contexts of where they are useful..


From: [] On Behalf Of Xavier Marjou
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

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.

- 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...);

- 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...).

Any opinion on that?



PS: I will be ready to present the slides on Thursday if time permits it.

(c.f. )

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <<>> wrote:
Magnus and I discussed this this morning, and we encourage you to
prepare something.  If the discussion of working group last call items
runs short, we may be able to fit this in at that time or at the end
of day one if its full agenda his finished.  This is not a commitment,
however, so please try and get discussion on the list on the points
from the draft you feel need resolution.



On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg)
<<>> wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to request agenda time for:
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
> The document  presents use-cases underlining why WebRTC needs AMR-WB,  AMR
> and G.722 as additional relevant voice codecs to satisfactorily ensure
> interoperability with existing systems.
> A 10-minute time slot should be sufficient for presentation and discussion.
> Regards
> -Espen
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb mailing list<>

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.