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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of stephane.proust@orange.com
>> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 7:33 AM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> 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 : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part
>> de Magnus Westerlund Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2012 09:30 À :
>> rtcweb@ietf.org 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  +46 10 7148287
>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> 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
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb