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

[<[e-mail]>]

I also support Stephane's proposal.


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Im Auftrag von Shida Schubert
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 13. Januar 2013 22:35
> An: Paul Coverdale
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Betreff: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting
> Recommended Audio Codecs
>
>
> +1
>
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Paul Coverdale wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>