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

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=87842d98f0=aallen@blackberry.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 58CCB21F8E00 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.582, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WnRZtjIxhLwV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mhs060cnc.rim.net (mhs060cnc.rim.net [208.65.73.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEF521F8E0A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a41282f-b7fa06d000002431-c7-5140c0058a2d
Received: from XCT105ADS.rim.net (xct105ads.rim.net [10.67.111.46]) by mhs060cnc.rim.net (SBG) with SMTP id 44.ED.09265.500C0415; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:05:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XMB104ADS.rim.net ([fe80::2494:a63d:e3:723b]) by XCT105ADS.rim.net ([fe80::2d01:2041:eea3:819b%22]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:05:57 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: "keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "roman@telurix.com" <roman@telurix.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOIBFgx2bVevKSSk6ahzAutyevXJij6q5L
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:05:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D28B32@XMB104ADS.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B013D9D@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.67.110.253]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD2338D28B32XMB104ADSrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrFKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC5Zyvp8t2wCHQ4Hc3t8XTxrOMFjMuTGW2 WPuvnd2B2aP12V5WjyVLfjJ53JpSEMAc1cBok5RYUhacmZ6nb2eTmJeXX5JYkqqQklqcbKvk k5qemKMQUJRZlphcqeCSWZyck5iZm1qkpJCZYqtkoqRQkJOYnJqbmldiq5RYUJCal6Jkx6WA AWyAyjLzFFLzkvNTMvPSbZU8g/11LSxMLXUNlex0Ezp5Mj7/+cde8GsrY8XKdW9YGhgnbGTs YuTkkBAwkZiycyYzhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYGVjBLTDrWyQjibGSX+tV9nB6liE9CS2H94OhNI QkRgKqPErvYfYKOEBeIlvj1tZQKxRQQSJDZd7GKEsI0kpu++BraCRUBV4tmK3WCDeAU8JBZd mM8GYnMKREs0bl7FAmIzAp3x/dQasDnMAuISt57MZ4I4T0BiyZ7zUKeKSrx8/I8VwlaU+Lv3 OytEfb7E9+XHoOYLSpyc+YRlAqPwLCSjZiEpm4WkbBYjB1BcU2L9Ln2IEkWJKd0P2SFsDYnW OXPZkcUXMLKvYhTMzSg2MDNIzkvWK8rM1ctLLdnECEofjhr6Oxjfvrc4xCjAwajEwyu+yyFQ iDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjv8lygEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIcYgYABNZJbiTs4Hpra8knhjAwMi OUrivCKBooFCAunApJWdmlqQWgQzlImDE2Qpl5RIMTD1pBYllpZkxIMSZHwxMEVKNTAeeRTi Efc4vrP4yDwLV97sd0wyXVf0nLsni8f9bTYNlK7gbIn2NTzq+O/6Z5fgr2+lw5bttL+t+HFH QGm1xoxchnt3N7l9uhm6ZL100MVMpTl/pq7c0i7SvlDVNmtS79q8N6p53eEth/8HeotXHp5p OsHkmMzs+UvZPgupq4szPoz+9kYtyE2JpTgj0VCLuag4EQAyNO8FbQMAAA==
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 18:06:12 -0000

Keith

That is out of scope of IETF. What I think you are suggesting amounts to operating system standardisation.

If you believe in the market then the business case of the browser implementers and the device vendors should align with the interests of the users (I.e their customers) assuming the costs are not prohibitive.

Andrew



From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:36 PM Central Standard Time
To: Andrew Allen; roman@telurix.com <roman@telurix.com>om>; rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

The problem is that the business case for the device vendor or end user may not be the business case for the browser vendor.

To be honest this discussion goes round and round in circles, with people trying to say things are out of scope.

What I believe we need is something that encourages creation of APIs for embedded codecs in the devices. Those API’s should then be made available within the browser.

This gets even more important when we get to video codecs. I am certainly interested in gateways from RTCWEB endpoints to other SIP based networks. Having to transcode from one video codec to another because of this impasse is a nightmare.

Someone has to break this loop.

Keith

________________________________
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Allen
Sent: 13 March 2013 17:30
To: roman@telurix.com; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01


If there is a business case for implementers to support other codecs for improved inteoperability with other networks and devices then they are very likely to do so.



From: Roman Shpount [mailto:roman@telurix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
To: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Normally, when implementing VoIP devices, unless they are intended for some sort of walled garden, you try to support as many codecs as possible. This increases your chances of interoperability with other devices and your product adoption. In case of WebRTC, it would be adopted regardless of what codecs are supported. The number of enabled devices would be so great that all the legacy networks will have to adapt. This has some negative implications to the legacy networks as far as quality and costs are concerned, but these challenges are not insurmountable. So, taking this into consideration, I want to place the same questions differently:

Do web browser implementers currently plan to support any other codecs except MTI (G.711 and OPUS)?

Is there anything we are going to say here regarding legacy interop that would make browser manufacturers to change their mind? After all, this represents additional cost to them with no direct benefit for the use cases which are most important to them (browser to browser calls).

For me, the desired outcome would be that browsers, at least for the next few years, do support a reasonable set of other codecs in addition to MTI, including G.722, AMR, AMR-WB, and may be Speex, . This would give me an opportunity to migrate from devices that support legacy codecs to devices that support Opus. The fact that different browser versions would support different codec sets (like desktop browsers not supporting AMR) is not a big issue, at least for me, since we always have G.711 or transcoding to fall back to. The same goes for browsers fazing some of the legacy codecs out in the future. The end result would still be better then 100% G.711 or transcoding.
_____________
Roman Shpount

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

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