IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 31 December 2012 11:28 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 D4C9C21F8756 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:28:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 6Z55vQBkRmTF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E446F21F867B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 03:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBVBSfjn005441; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:28:42 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.20]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:28:41 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.146]) by 008-AM1MMR1-011.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.20]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:28:40 +0000
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: adam@nostrum.com, tterriberry@mozilla.com
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs
Thread-Index: AQHN35gKKGER8UnZokqrcUx5QDpaGJgyzYjw
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:28:40 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB76234338A@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <50D2CC6A.4090500@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623356EF@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <50D3E3BF.7070609@mozilla.com> <50D48DD8.3050702@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <50D48DD8.3050702@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.21.81.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2012 11:28:41.0612 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC5BDCC0:01CDE749]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended 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: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:28:45 -0000

Hi,

Actually, I think both Tim and Adam have good points below. RFC 2119 style RECOMMENDED or SHOULD is perhaps too strong. I don't have a problem if we just list the most relevant non-MTI codecs and give guidance why it would be beneficial to support them.

So far a few people have brought up AMR/AMR-WB and G.722 with relatively clear arguments. iLBC and AAC-LD have been mentioned too, but I think their benefits have not been as well clarified so far.

Markus


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of ext Adam Roach
>Sent: 21 December, 2012 18:27
>To: Timothy B. Terriberry
>Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
>Audio Codecs
>
>On 12/20/12 22:21, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
>> Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
>>> My proposal would be to recommend AMR, and perhaps AMR-WB. The
>>> rationale is
>>
>> I don't think we should list a set of RECOMMENDED codecs. If we were
>> talking just G.722, iLBC, etc., I might be persuaded. But this is a
>> 2119 RECOMMENDED, which is a bit stronger than "Gee, it would be
>> nice," and given the aforementioned IPR situation, Mozilla is not
>> likely to be deploying any of the AMR family anytime soon.
>>
>> If the goal is interoperability with deployed systems, you're going to
>> implement what you need to implement to achieve that, and nothing we
>> write down in an RFC will change what that needs to be.
>
>I'm going to have to agree with Tim -- very little would be served by having
>normative SHOULD-strength requirements here.
>
>What I think would be beneficial would be a section documenting codecs in
>widespread use today, where they're used, and what is gained by including
>them in WebRTC implementations (mostly transcoder-free interop with those
>other implementations). Documenting that AMR is used in 3GPP VoIP
>networks would allow implementors to make an educated decision about the
>benefit of including that codec. A similar mention that many modern VoIP
>phones support G.722 and/or AAC-LD would provide similar guidance.
>
>But I don't think there's much to be gained by readying the scarlet letter of
>"conditionally compliant" that would result from a SHOULD-strength
>normative statement about royalty-bearing codecs.
>
>/a
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email