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

Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <xavier.marjou@gmail.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 8B7E921F8614 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 DYC4BE52vFO0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DBE21F85EB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id fe20so1095488lab.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XGGM4n15QVc8WaUEfOCIDRPmbGEcM5ZbDoIbZNr85fc=; b=FP1qayd+bwwcp8OW6wn7hAvUe5q5HXuvU05S+cSsMabVGo6UMhVIcN+VWzduW9niAq 1R0zUCf0U4YYDkXBDPIq098FDDjblfMeiCwebKcHtms98Eh80YrfEITkCNAy3GNQVywg gCUqs/mLN/dejpdsuKAPHrleSfsC6tWwVlCLSVs898R2uihVpihg0KSioF97Cjmah5uV IO9+xHZLsrI0U1O9LnNcxcJ1vwGDnSCgrLYzTjfS4Z4MAkYAlZXpMzCUo817y+H0XoXa d5hYzzl5ca9Lu8Mcv7XKygobHgLD5e8Cb7698SLsKqlEYtVkDg8SlmjdyNn27hAr3+gF 2ZgA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.41.101 with SMTP id e5mr7407453lbl.120.1363180470253; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: xavier.marjou@gmail.com
Received: by 10.114.7.167 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E8F5F2C7B2623641BD9ABF0B622D726D0F68869E@xmb-rcd-x11.cisco.com> <CA+9kkMA7x18x3rD9PoPx-rA+4uz7ome3LjQ7sOWHDptz0zJX6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:14:30 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6FoQnM6l_8elkx7naq85ntS1RJY
Message-ID: <CAErhfrx24SR5zwH3oHQi_PhFkfQjCmbMuatwEw2kjJ184MiUpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Marjou <xavier.marjou@orange.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe2f9cb1c57004d7ce2f92
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 13:14:32 -0000

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?

Cheers,

Xavier

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

(c.f. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/86/slides/slides-86-rtcweb-6.pdf )



On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> 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.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Espen Berger (espeberg)
> <espeberg@cisco.com> 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@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>