Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

["Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <[e-mail]>]

This conversation shouldn’t have been an IETF issue either, any more than making a list of mandatory SIP codecs would be.

Matthew Kaufman

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Allen
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:13 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call


Roman

It seems you are re-visiting an already decided question of which are the mandatory to implement audio codecs and the concensus call already was made months ago that they are OPUS and G.711.

In my view these achieve the minimum necessary level of basic audio communications interoperability with other systems.
I think this low cost argument has already been dismissed - there is no free lunch - development and testing have considerable costs associated with them as do the consequential delays in implementation and deployment and the IPR situation is not usually 100% certain.

The market will decide what other codecs are useful to be deployed for superior quality interoperability with other high quality audio systems and what codecs make commercial sense to implement today will not make sense 5 years from now.

I do not agree that we should add any additional mandatory to implement audio codecs for RTCweb or make recommendations on additional codecs either.

Andrew

From: Roman Shpount [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:45 AM Central Standard Time
To: Xavier Marjou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

If we follow the logic in this document, I would suggest that G.722 MUST be implemented in all cases. For all practical purposes G.722 is always available. It might not be provided by the platform, but the complexity of implementing it is extremely low, and there is no IPR cost. G.722 is already part of the current WebRTC code base in both Chromium and Firefox, but it is disabled during compilation from being included in the web browser build. Adding support for G.722 in two current major implementations would require one change in defines.
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Xavier Marjou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
As suggested by the chairs, here is a draft indicating the motivations, as well as a proposed way-forward, regarding "additional relevant audio codecs" : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00

I would like to present it during the IETF-86.

Cheers,
Xavier

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

We chairs was considering inclusion in draft-ietf-webrtc-audio, but we
didn't have any strong opinions on this. Based on that several WG
participants thinks this should be an independent document, I thus
decided that we will start out with an independent document. If the WG
feels differently later we can always fold the text into the audio codec
and processing requirements document.

I would recommend that the individuals interested in contributing a
codec writes an independent submission with focus on the codec
considerations around the codec(s) they are interested in. Then we can
merge this into a common WG document.

Cheers

Magnus


On 2013-01-27 10:14, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi WG chairs,
>
> Clarification question:
>
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
>
> Inclusion where?
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf
>> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
>> call
>>
>>
>> We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting
>> Recommended Audio Codecs.
>>
>> At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus".
>>
>> We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of
>> potentially important codecs including a description why they should be
>> considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations.
>>
>> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
>> supports the inclusion of a new section on "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 WG chairs
>> Magnus, Ted and Cullen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

--

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]<tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]<tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.