Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 10/21/2014 12:29 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> From the subject "Plan for MTI video codec", I thought this discussion
> was about video codecs, not AMR interop.

All discussions branch, but I strongly recommend changing the subject
line when changing the subject.

The discussion is supposed to be managed by the WG chairs; since they
have not spoken up on this thread at all, I must assume that they do not
wish to constrain the discussion at this time.

>
> An astute observer might take note of the fact that our inability to
> close the door on H.264 is providing an opportunity to other
> royalty-bearing codecs that want to join the party.
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:34 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     The scenario where you might want to transcode the audio codec is
>     where you have wideband audio in both the OPUS and the AMR, and
>     you believe by transcoding you can achieve a wideband quality,
>     rather than falling back to G.711. And for interworking between
>     3GPP devices that are not using webRTC, the audio will still be
>     AMR or AMR-WB or EVC, not OPUS.
>      
>     But audio transcoding is not particularly a concern for me. It is
>     trying where possible to avoid video transcoding.
>      
>     Keith
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *From:* rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Allen
>         *Sent:* 20 October 2014 14:52
>         *To:* [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
>
>
>         Chris
>
>         What is the scenario that dictates the need for direct
>         transcoding between OPUS and AMR?
>
>         All RTCweb clients MUST support OPUS so for Web browsers on
>         mobile LTE devices OPUS can be negotiated with non mobile
>         RTCweb devices end to end.
>
>         My expectation is that for mobile devices the RTCweb client
>         will also have access to the embedded AMR codec so mobile
>         RTCweb devices can interoperate using AMR with non-RTCweb
>         enabled mobile IMS devices that support AMR.
>
>         For interoperation between non mobile RTCweb devices and
>         mobile non RTCweb IMS devices the non mobile RTCweb device can
>         use G.711 to the transcoder for transcoding to AMR on the
>         other side. While not ideal this will be no worse than non
>         mobile RTCweb devices interoperating with circuit switched
>         only mobile devices which will be forced to interoperate via
>         the PSTN.
>
>         As RTCweb becomes universal on mobile devices I expect that
>         support for OPUS will become native and mobile IMS devices
>         will also be able to use OPUS even when operating without the
>         use of the browser (i.e. in non RTCweb mode) for better
>         interoperation with non-mobile RTCweb devices.
>
>         The lifetime of most mobile devices is 2 years or less so this
>         is likely to be mainly a short term transition issue only.
>
>         Andrew
>          
>         *From*: Cavigioli, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>         *Sent*: Sunday, October 19, 2014 09:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>         *To*: Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Bernard Aboba
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Cc*: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Subject*: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
>          
>
>         Harald said: 
>
>         “We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously
>         with not enough details on that subject…”
>
>          
>
>         We didn’t have quantitative data earlier for a data-driven
>         decision.  Future Web – LTE interop is important.  A group of
>         us in GSMA have been looking at WebRTC interop with LTE (where
>         3GPP / GSMA defined IMS-based voice/video/messaging),
>         specifically looking at user experience impact of latency
>         introduced by added in-network transcoding.  GSMA has approved
>         the whitepaper and it is being prepared for public distribution. 
>
>          
>
>         WebRTC – LTE transcoding is now MANDATORY because of “WebRTC
>         Audio Codec and Processing Requirements”.
>         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-05, where
>         MTI audio codecs in WebRTC and in LTE are dissimilar.  Thus,
>         REGARDLESS of the video codecs, there is already a significant
>         degradation imposed on Web – LTE links if only MTI codecs are
>         used.  The only systems to avoid this are those which
>         implement OPTIONAL audio codecs to be transcoder-free with
>         LTE.  The same can apply for video codecs.
>
>          
>
>         The GSMA whitepaper refers to:
>
>         1.     Quantitative voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) delay limits were
>         agreed-to by 3GPP SA4 in August 2014.  To paraphrase,
>         performance objectives for maximum VoLTE device delays in
>         error and jitter free conditions and AMR speech codec
>         operation, the sum of the UE delays in sending and receiving
>         directions (T_S + T_R ) should be ≤ 150ms. If this performance
>         objective cannot be met, the sum of the UE delays in sending
>         and receiving directions (T_S + T_R ) shall in any case be ≤
>         190ms.
>
>         2.     OPUS – AMR transcoding adds an additional 211.5 ms
>         implementation-agnostic (T_S + T_R ) delay, including 40 ms
>         for jitter buffer and 40 ms for discontinuous reception (DRX).
>
>         3.     To put these numbers in perspective, it is in general
>         desirable to minimize UE delays to ensure low enough
>         end-to-end delays and hence a good conversational experience. 
>         Increasing delay causes people to double-talk making
>         conversations increasingly frustrating.  Guidance to stay
>         below 400 ms maximum one-way delay is found in ITU-T
>         Recommendation G.114 and the computational E-model is in ITU-T
>         Recommendation G.107.
>
>          
>
>         This is a complex topic with many network factors in play. 
>         LTE operators in 3GPP seek UE delays (T_S + T_R ) around 150
>         ms.  Adding OPUS – AMR transcoding in the network imposes an
>         additional 211.5 ms on top of that, just for audio. 
>         Optionally using AMR in WebRTC, those 211.5 ms can be
>         eliminated, delivering a superior end-user experience. 
>
>          
>
>         CONCLUSION:  regardless of MTI codec choices in WebRTC, to
>         provide a good WebRTC – LTE interop experience, emerging
>         WebRTC systems must accommodate MTI codecs already deployed in
>         the LTE domain and in mobile operating systems, namely
>         AMR/AMR-WB and H.264.
>
>          
>
>         POSITION:  To be clear, several Intel SoCs launched at MWC
>         this year for smartphones and tablets support both VP8 and
>         H.264 hardware encode and decode – so Intel is codec-neutral
>         in this MTI debate.  Additionally, Intel has high-performance
>         solutions for transcoding.  However, we wish to inform the
>         industry, with quantitative data, about impact to end-user
>         experience of mandating such transcoding so IETF can make a
>         data-driven decision on video codecs as well as reflect on the
>         impact of already having mandated transcoding on the audio side.
>
>          
>
>         Chris Cavigioli
>
>         Intel Corp, System Architecture and Planning,
>         Video/Multimedia, Mobile and Communications Group (MCG)
>
>         [phone] <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20254-4545> mobile
>
>         [phone] <tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%20653-8348> desk
>
>         [phone] <tel:%2B1%20%28408%29%20884-2400> fax
>
>         This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material
>         for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any review or
>         distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
>         the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete
>         all copies.
>
>          
>
>         *From:*rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Aboba
>         *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:29 PM
>         *To:* Harald Alvestrand
>         *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
>
>          
>
>         Harald said: 
>
>          
>
>         "Bernard,
>
>
>         I think this is, to a large degree, codec independent.
>
>         We have demonstrated interoperability on VP8 between Firefox
>         and Chrome, and usage of various mechanisms for congestion
>         control and repair of packet loss being applied in live services.
>
>         So it can't be all bad....."
>
>          
>
>         [BA]  I agree that the lack of interoperability is largely
>         "codec independent":   that is, implementations based on
>         different mechanisms for congestion control, repair, etc. will
>         exhibit interoperability problems, regardless of the codec
>         chosen.   The real test for RTCWEB will be to move beyond
>         "interoperability of implementations sharing source code"  to
>         "interoperability of independent implementations, based on
>         open standards".   
>
>          
>
>         On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On 10/19/2014 05:43 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>             "And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of
>             the technology"
>
>              
>
>             [BA] Specifying an MTI encoder/decoder is not sufficient
>             for interoperability.  It is also necessary to specify the
>             transport in enough detail to allow independent
>             implementations that interoperate well enough to be usable
>             in a wide variety of scenarios, including wireless
>             networks where loss is commonly experienced. 
>
>
>         Bernard,
>
>         I think this is, to a large degree, codec independent.
>
>         We have demonstrated interoperability on VP8 between Firefox
>         and Chrome, and usage of various mechanisms for congestion
>         control and repair of packet loss being applied in live services.
>
>         So it can't be all bad.....
>
>
>
>
>          
>
>         We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously
>         with not enough details on that subject, particularly with
>         respect to H.264. draft-ietf-rtcweb-video sections 4.2 - 4.4
>         remain sketchy at best.  
>
>          
>
>         So if we are to have the discussion again, it should occur in
>         the context of detailed specifications and interoperability
>         reports.
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         I'm in favor of taking another run at this.
>
>          
>
>         The working group has repeatedly said that an MTI codec is
>         something we need to produce. And its one of the issues
>         holding up wider adoption of the technology (not the only one
>         for sure).
>
>          
>
>         And things have changed since the last meeting, a year ago now
>         (November in Vancouver). Cisco's open264 plugin shipped and
>         now just recently is integrated into Firefox. iOS8 shipped
>         with APIs for H264. There are other things worth noting. Will
>         this change the minds of everyone? Surely not. Will it sway
>         enough for us to achieve rough consensus? Maybe. IMHO - worth
>         finding out.
>
>          
>
>         On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         +1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has
>         been made on VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing
>         harald's  feeling that there was no change on the members
>         position. 
>
>          
>
>         On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>         One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to
>         actually make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of
>         draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could actually interoperate
>         regardless of the codec.
>
>
>         The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in
>         -overview: It guards against interoperability failure.
>
>         I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box,
>         connect it to everything else, and run well for *some* level
>         of "well" - and I would prefer that ecosystem to be one where
>         it's possible to field the box without making prior
>         arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>
>         This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we
>         discussed it. And I don't see much movement on the specifics
>         of the proposals either.
>
>         We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So
>         using some time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to
>         make sense. (And 4.1 isn't finished either. There's one
>         sentence that needs to be removed.)
>
>         I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu.
>         But I'd prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some
>         significant players have actually changed their minds.
>
>         At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll
>         respondents have said "I have changed my mind".
>
>         Harald
>
>
>
>
>
>         On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         wrote:
>
>         On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>         And that's because something substantive has changed, or
>         simply because
>         wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than
>         actually
>         finishing a specification that can be independently
>         implemented by all
>         browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near
>         having, as far as
>         I can tell)
>
>         Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight
>         refreshing.  And
>         it would appear that we've made some real progress as a
>         result.  I'd
>         suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to
>         spend
>         our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our
>         meeting
>         agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>          
>
>         -- 
>
>         Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>
>         President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard <http://sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard>
>
>         ·          
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>          
>
>         -- 
>
>         Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         http://www.jdrosen.net
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>          
>
>         -- 
>
>         Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.