Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C081200C4 for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:03:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=standardstrack.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id noCKCf05Tkml for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from se3g-lax1.servconfig.com (se3g-lax1.servconfig.com [173.231.200.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADCA61200BA for <rum@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz221.inmotionhosting.com ([192.145.239.201]) by se3-lax1.servconfig.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1iS0LP-000kyw-2O; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:03:02 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KZMaUwB4LVFT6Z6K/Mg1Hw/A0x8uRDIF8gFvCMhtYtg=; b=IMnrWHkILJ8lBLoBz7jn0prD6 qA05OdTyt1/x+9p2BPOG00hxBs+W8uQmcC7D7+0j713JDDnWCD61/K0yLhL4NEaCofJAaF4YFgIvV VUUlsxddpPcg162m0/ZgDaq/nP/1IZN+p28S1ox0O5hVZHM308dhcIFvLzEPLmV1dixMM=;
Received: from [68.100.101.142] (port=54407 helo=[192.168.10.23]) by biz221.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1iS0L0-00EeR8-Fu; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:01:47 -0800
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Message-Id: <4C40ABB4-5B61-4B2F-AC0D-148DCFBFE5C5@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC5D9F5F-7664-43DD-B4E0-6517070C6354"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:01:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4d6550eb-e9b4-2ef7-e784-b561c6b5e7e5@ntlworld.com>
Cc: rum@ietf.org
To: Keith Drage <drageke=40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <a3d82911-8d07-16a3-780b-0592e48e37bd@alum.mit.edu> <ab68a7fb-7196-4374-7cd4-baf9a03cf6ff@alum.mit.edu> <1572872182151.78082@purple.us> <9717D87D-A48F-47C3-AD75-5908BAF7A649@brianrosen.net> <47E7BD6C-228D-450F-9ADE-9C0D7B2277DB@standardstrack.com> <4d6550eb-e9b4-2ef7-e784-b561c6b5e7e5@ntlworld.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: eburger@standardstrack.com
X-Originating-IP: 192.145.239.201
X-SpamExperts-Domain: biz221.inmotionhosting.com
X-SpamExperts-Username: 192.145.239.201
Authentication-Results: servconfig.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=192.145.239.201@biz221.inmotionhosting.com
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: unsure
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.33)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0T9zDZOvA8ND4p2eQxdfzLSpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVsXblgSG7vgel aGIDzflcaUTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKyP9eGNFz9TW9u+Jt8z2T3KpnEZh/1TWYPxiXvCF9ELgOQa sXca9sUwraWbQljue+XcaStobCNhOi6Y38ja8jcCyQLfXoabdmF7Z8uHfA5hh+/nuT7bKkgq3or+ qQQCKZFaa40DxZPJuLUk3zkVKd8p4CuEXwMMCcu55/Z5CMTXnC5KtYTK5v+NF2pDjWOnMZxVgNLA cemS5GrZNqDVrrlDK571Ms6E3wBhGy+SN+eBAEPqZ+EdrzwFo9mhzGK28Qpfas4bNMpZmzfpbwL2 zrFY3xyMg3et4b3PQUopDmbZCihrbSYJfR+LZtZDutNJAPGzmytOdv4y7nsDnCOWpjMbLQoQCfDI T12174WQMpJX30QMF99VlWOZVo1sbhkkbsWDvMLe++FAYlMoGF4BF94gYSs8tu3SfniPe8dfir25 xuWBOXp8nHKe0R+FkIqN7hmcubQ4B4MUC0xoF/AJj9oJ+pVkDQ94LnHlmTp1e89cKPjBGDKNDQ3s l1Tt7TUoFYHJDp89JrMFV2ZKRVXuWYBgNDC46oC99+wG2tIs2jSvpH1blhm40mPbyIGRjFveVXxR wfm7xpjCuTuV9PKCb8KebsrqmgkwW+bipWkhUsiHBiKJrujjfr9ehc33GuUiOWjwwm+36+rDPjZX FzDxKnFcLOJ8h5mIiWOZ8Rp05Sh1WcUXC2YrxA3JqQGzPWUXNAK2Z6jPu3gGqGP+WM1PrgPPtrPn 7riXPK9sLCKHqq5MEzCPGFbJAjZWzx/dldM52SBZ4Zw9l5HgtiAHQwhy4eevYNq1QEDMKJ8d3pdp haKSY9VEBOKF9QIHp0J9baKs+HbqqYkWb/t8xfPCeCGhwGo6OF4w/GCEWyMjAg02qRtcL2N6VfaT 9OSuKXGGemUIwlQEiBscwRdrth+1+oWTDTjsthRNgs7Ig4l/XErpYn3glQkxr4mj4MZH+i/w3YbD RhIEDUvVPVKpFOi1rluCUyrMgOTrxaKru/d2SjLMXJkELe/qLNYlLdYGrpGm9+px9JL7TaDqKw3e DGcjFdLc9KlD
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@se1-lax1.servconfig.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/tFd0XI1hUM6rTi4NjnsGepIhlKI>
Subject: Re: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
X-BeenThere: rum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Relay User Machine <rum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rum/>
List-Post: <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:03:05 -0000

To name a few:

Mantokoudis, Georgios; Kompis, Martin; Dubach, Patrick; Caversaccio, Marco; Senn, Pascal, Speech Perception Benefits of Internet Versus Conventional Telephony for Hearing-Impaired Individuals, https://www.jmir.org/2012/4/e102/ <https://www.jmir.org/2012/4/e102/>

Wältermann, M.; Raake, A.; Möller, S., Quality Dimensions of Narrowband and Wideband Speech Transmission, https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/dav/aaua/2010/00000096/00000006/art00009 <https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/dav/aaua/2010/00000096/00000006/art00009>

Hannu Pulakka, Laura Laaksonen, Paavo Alku, Quality Improvement of Telephone Speech by Artificial Bandwidth Expansion – Listening Tests in Three Languages, https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2006/i06_1245.pdf <https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/interspeech_2006/i06_1245.pdf>

Yang, Xiangui, Effects of Digital Audio Quality on Students' Performance in LAN Delivered English Listening Comprehension Tests, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ohiou1236796324 <https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ohiou1236796324>


> On Nov 4, 2019, at 1:38 PM, Keith Drage <drageke=40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Out of interest, do you have any reference to research papers that have evaluated different codecs for use by the hard of hearing, and in particular that justify the statement "Opus is infinitely better for people with partial hearing loss than G.711".
> 
> 
> 
> Keith
> 
> On 04/11/2019 15:39, Eric Burger wrote:
>> The point is that if we say it’s OK not to implement Opus, it means we will still be using G.711 in 2120, long after the last 3,000 Hz toll facility has crumbled into dust.
>> 
>> By saying Opus is Mandatory to Implement, it means you can feel free to use G.711 if that’s what is offered, but when you look in the other direction you are able to accept a more modern codec. Also, Opus is infinitely better for people with partial hearing loss than G.711 - it can be the difference between being able to still use audio, being able to use just a CTS service, or if needed a full VRS service. These are the kinds of things we think about in the IETF to support legacy networks while creating useful services that are not simply replicas of legacy services.
>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net <mailto:br@brianrosen.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mandatory to Implement doesn’t mean mandatory to use.  In the example of an incoming call from the PSTN, offering G.711 only is appropriate, and transcoding would not be advisable.
>>> 
>>> The IETF folk understand MTI, but perhaps some explanatory text would be helpful in the document.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 7:56 AM, James Hamlin <james.hamlin@purple.us <mailto:james.hamlin@purple.us>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> In the draft-ietf-rum-rue-00, there's an exemption from VP8 support for providers but no exemption from Opus support. The implication is that, in a call from the PSTN using Voice Carry Over, the provider must offer OPUS even though the audio content is constrained to 8bit*8kHz PCM over the PSTN. I don't recall seeing any argument for requiring transcoding in this case; there would be no benefit in audio quality.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards
>>>> 
>>>> James
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Rum <rum-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rum-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>
>>>> Sent: 01 October 2019 20:15
>>>> To: rum@ietf.org <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
>>>> 
>>>> In the discussion thread that followed the attached message it started
>>>> to become apparent that there is a need to distinguish the requirements,
>>>> and/or requirement strength, that apply to the RUE itself from those
>>>> that apply when a RUE connects to a VRS Provider.
>>>> 
>>>> Now that we have a wg draft to work from, I would like to see people
>>>> step forward and make proposal(s) for what those differences should be.
>>>> 
>>>> While the prior discussion focused on codecs, please also consider what
>>>> else might need to differ.
>>>> 
>>>>        Thanks,
>>>>        Paul
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01
>>>> Resent-From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:20:51 -0400
>>>> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu <mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>>
>>>> To: rum@ietf.org <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
>>>> 
>>>> draft-rosen-rue-01 changes the video codec requirements. It now simply
>>>> references webrtc RFC7742.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC7742 distinguishes three types of endpoints: "WebRTC browser",
>>>> "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". AFAIK it assumes
>>>> that each end is one of these.
>>>> 
>>>> Is the expectation here that both the RUE and the provider comply with
>>>> one of these? In particular, that the provider may simply be a
>>>> "WebRTC-compatible endpoint? Notably:
>>>> 
>>>>    "WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs
>>>>    they see fit.  This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-
>>>>    compatible endpoint".  It is, of course, advisable to implement at
>>>>    least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC browsers,
>>>>    and implementors are encouraged to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> Similarly, the audio requirements have been changed to reference webrtc
>>>> RFC7874. That one doesn't have the distinction between "WebRTC browser",
>>>> "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". It applies the
>>>> same requirements to all. In particular, it requires OPUS support. I
>>>> don't know why it doesn't make the same endpoint distinctions as for video.
>>>> 
>>>> I think simply referencing these documents isn't sufficient. Seems like
>>>> we need a more nuanced specification of what is required, though we may
>>>> still reference these docs with qualifications.
>>>> 
>>>>        Thanks,
>>>>        Paul
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Rum mailing list
>>>> Rum@ietf.org <mailto:Rum@ietf.org>
>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,Fpj3uNl4KHZVkbPWDbLGqfVwMGBdbeBLTsOB6QL2I3YozMnj25zcbabu7vIDBK1XllKKO2g7RstAehUCAqLal9VAcn2JjWNhbLeuauSs&typo=0 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,Fpj3uNl4KHZVkbPWDbLGqfVwMGBdbeBLTsOB6QL2I3YozMnj25zcbabu7vIDBK1XllKKO2g7RstAehUCAqLal9VAcn2JjWNhbLeuauSs&typo=0>
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Rum mailing list
>>>> Rum@ietf.org <mailto:Rum@ietf.org>
>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,G7A8JW3tfx9hiDhscPDTeHCoLWUSZAbId59jwHnCzDyqC39OUhM8kWYkfV9kiAEQFFRR9WYYMFy1o70xg8b-0emBXUamnQT4emSupy2-U8Yb5E-WvU4iSpdSVqQ,&typo=0 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2frum&c=E,1,G7A8JW3tfx9hiDhscPDTeHCoLWUSZAbId59jwHnCzDyqC39OUhM8kWYkfV9kiAEQFFRR9WYYMFy1o70xg8b-0emBXUamnQT4emSupy2-U8Yb5E-WvU4iSpdSVqQ,&typo=0>
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Rum mailing list
>>>> Rum@ietf.org <mailto:Rum@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>
>>> --
>>> Rum mailing list
>>> Rum@ietf.org <mailto:Rum@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>
>> 
>> 
> --
> Rum mailing list
> Rum@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum