in my earlier email).
Regards
/Ingemar
-Original Message-
From: Monty Montgomery [mailto:xiphm...@gmail.com]
Sent: den 21 januari 2010 06:41
To: Ingemar Johansson S
Cc: co...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec
It's not clear to me why SDOs need to be involved in the process of
determining whether existing codecs satisfy the requirements.
Information on standard codecs -- including their technical and legal
aspects -- is pretty widely available. And if information about a
codec isn't generally
[snip]
What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only then
will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if
already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet them.
I agree. Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell
Richard,
I think I agree...
It's not clear to me why SDOs need to be involved in the process of
determining whether existing codecs satisfy the requirements.
However, no-one can make the determination without requirements to make an
evaluation against.
And to be sure that all the
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com [stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:46 PM
To: ho...@uni-tuebingen.de
Cc: i...@iab.org; co...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec
Hi,
Actually, maybe we can look at how other SDOs are handling this issue.
Considering that ITU-T, 3GPP/3GPP2 and (to a lesser extent) MPEG all
standardise codecs in the same space, how do these SDOs coordinate? For
example, does the ITU-T SG16 have some text in it's charter that says we
will
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:44:36PM +0100, stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com
wrote:
In line as well : The first stage of the work has not been done yet : the
detailed technical requirements have not been defined and agreed yet, the
second stage of the work with other SDOs to analyse if already
...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
in-line
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ingemar Johansson S
ingemar.s.johans...@ericsson.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mans Nilsson
Once again we are getting tied up in the IPR debate...
One reason to check existing codecs against the CODEC requirements is that
too many overlapping codecs in the marketplace works against
interoperability.
A second reason is that developing a new codec is a lot of work, so it makes
sense to
in-line
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ingemar Johansson S
ingemar.s.johans...@ericsson.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org]
Sent: den 21 januari 2010 13:14
To: Ingemar Johansson S
Cc: co...@ietf.org;
I would add that it is possible that another SDO has work-in-progress that
might overlap, so it is important to ask them. This is slightly different
from getting information on something already finished.
I agree that this particular issue is not a reason to block the formation of
the WG itself,
Hi Ron
I agree there's been discussion about existing codecs, and most of it has
been helpful and constructive.
But until the detailed requirements have been determined, I don't think it
is very fruitful to continue it.
IMHO we'll need those details to be more precisely stated (and agreed to)
As proposed by Xavier and his colleagues at Orange these requirements once
defined should be giving the opportunity to the community and to other SDOs
members to check for codecs potentially fullfilling the requirements.
It is already the case that submissions are welcome from any
interested
-
From: codec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:codec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Sjoerd Simons
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:37 AM
To: i...@ietf.org; co...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:15:01AM -0800
botzko
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:22 PM
To: Jean-Marc Valin
Cc: IESG IESG; IAB IAB; co...@ietf.org; Adrian Farrel; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
I kind of like the joint body idea.
One reason is that it brings the ITU codec
Hi,
stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
The Charter states first the The goal of this working group is to
develop a single high-quality audio codec considering (on what basis
?) that there are no standardized, high-quality audio codecs that meet
all of the following three conditions
Hi
Personally, I am excited about the prospects of such an outcome and of
the view that we need to let the IETF work proceed and run its full course.
cheers
John Kostogiannis
Voicetronix
Powering Open Telephony
www.voicetronix.com
Tel: +61 2 9231 4800
Fax: +61 2 9231 4811
Hi,
At the outset of this process, I was quite simply excited by the
prospect of a group of talented codec researchers joining forces to
push the limits of their art, with a shared aim of producing the
next generation of codecs, tailored to suit modern transports, and
to the needs of a broader
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:27:26PM +0100, stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com
wrote:
Hi
It is not clear for me how is handled the editing process of the Charter and
how the agreement or not on the different points contained in it can be
assessed !
The current version is not acceptable, at
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:15:01AM -0800, IESG Secretary wrote:
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time Applications
and Infrastructure Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
informational
de
Xavier Marjou
Envoyé : lundi 11 janvier 2010 21:19
À : Cullen Jennings
Cc : IAB IAB; co...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion; IESG IESG
Objet : Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Hi,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from Cullen
since
part de
Christian Hoene
Envoyé : mardi 12 janvier 2010 01:28
À : MARJOU Xavier RD-CORE-LAN
Cc : 'IAB IAB'; co...@ietf.org; 'IETF Discussion'; 'IESG IESG'
Objet : Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Dear Xavior Marjou,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e
...@ietf.org [mailto:codec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Jean-Marc Valin
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:04 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: co...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion; IAB IAB; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Hi Adrian,
During the last BoF
While I see the burden and pain Russ mentions, I also want to note that
there is a distinct advantage of a joint project: the project would be bound
to the patent policies of both IETF and the other body (here: ITU).
In the specific case of the codec work, a joint project provides an
insurance
Hello Christian,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:27, Christian Hoene ho...@uni-tuebingen.de wrote:
Dear Xavior Marjou,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from
Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks
(gateways, service plate-forms,
Hi Adrian,
During the last BoF in Hiroshima, there was a very useful presentation by
Yusuke Hiwasaki (SG16-Q10 Associate Rapporteur) about how the ITU-T works
(slides at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/slides/codec-2.pdf). From
what I understand, there are two main reasons why the ITU-T
I kind of like the joint body idea.
One reason is that it brings the ITU codec characterization/testing
strengths into the process.
Though it might take a little longer to get going, it could save a lot of
time at the end (IMHO).
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM,
A joint-body first agrees upon its charter and working methods, which allows
for any negotiation on IPR rules and membership, etc.
All of the companies I know who are active in the ITU are also active in the
IETF. So it seems to me that there should be some willingness to work
together.
In any
I see absolutely no good reason not to start the work and do
negotiations with other SDOs on the side.
That is thw way these joint bodies are usually formed (at least the
MPEG/ITU-T ones). The group(s) form, and begin their work.(independently)
In parallel the chairs and SDO management work
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, stephen botzko wrote:
A joint-body first agrees upon its charter and working methods, which allows
for any negotiation on IPR rules and membership, etc.
All of the companies I know who are active in the ITU are also active in the
IETF. So it seems to me that there should
until now other SDOs have failed to produce a widely distributed good
quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the Internet
'Failed' is not quite the right word word. It is more that [to date]
they have shown little interest and as such have not tried. However
if they
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, stephen botzko
stephen.bot...@gmail.com wrote:
I kind of like the joint body idea.
One reason is that it brings the ITU codec characterization/testing
strengths into the process.
Though it might take a little longer to get going, it could save a lot of
time
Hi Christian and others
Timescaling and jitter buffer management is AFAIK not included in the codec
specifications done in other standards foras. But that does not mean that it is
left unspecified. In 3GPP TS we settled with a specification of only the
requirements
Stefan,
until now other SDOs have failed to produce a widely distributed good
quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the
Internet - especially one that is easily distributable - even though the
necessary technology has been available for a long time. Further, nothing
Dear Xavior Marjou,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from
Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks
(gateways, service plate-forms, mediaservers...) and in terminals
represents high costs for service providers, manufacturers and chipset
Hello,
o Xavier Marjou [01/11/2010 09:18 PM]:
Requirements established first in stage 1 shall be sent for stage 2 to
other SDOs as stated in the current version of the Charter:
The working group will communicate detailed description of the
requirements and goals to other SDOs including the
This is about to start another time around the same circle, but if the
arguments need to be restated, I'll take a turn on this lap.
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from
Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks
(gateways, service
Quoting stephen botzko stephen.bot...@gmail.com:
I kind of like the joint body idea.
One reason is that it brings the ITU codec characterization/testing
strengths into the process.
Though it might take a little longer to get going, it could save a lot of
time at the end (IMHO).
I fully
Hi,
Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a good
idea to just say that the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with a
20-year lag. As it has been already shown with the codec proposals received to
date, it should be possible to create RF codecs that are
Hi,
I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly
agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I
understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the charter,
but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea IMO.
...@ietf.org
Sent: Fri Jan 08 21:43:49 2010
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
I like that.
On 2010-01-08 18:14, Russ Housley wrote:
Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce
Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Hi,
I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly
agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I
understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the
charter,
but at least mentioning the problem
I wonder how far away from the original discussion about the charter we
already are.
Many of these discussions should happen in a future working group.
Ciao
Hannes
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Jean-Marc,
I don't think anything has been shown, with respect to IPR and RF
properties of the current input proposal documents. And I don't believe
anything conclusive will be shown, ever. At best, arguably, nothing
substantial has been shown against an RF claim of the input proposals.
Sorry, my has been shown statement was about making something much better
than G.722/G.711. The IPR part is something that would need to be discussed
within a future WG (subject to BCP79 and all).
Jean-Marc
Quoting Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org:
Hi Jean-Marc,
I don't think anything has
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 6:25 PM
To: co...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
I wonder how far away from the original discussion about
Hi,
We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from
Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks
(gateways, service plate-forms, mediaservers...) and in terminals
represents high costs for service providers, manufacturers and chipset
providers in terms of
With regard to this proposed WG, I have some comments on the sentences at
its beginning:
According to reports from developers of Internet audio applications and
operators of Internet audio services, there are no standardized,
high-quality audio codecs that meet all of the following three
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hoene [mailto:ho...@uni-tuebingen.de]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 4:56 PM
To: 'Herve Taddei'; 'IETF Discussion'
Cc: 'IAB IAB'; co...@ietf.org; 'IESG IESG'
Subject: AW: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Dear Herve,
According
...@munnari.oz.au; 'Sam Hartman'; co...@ietf.org;
'Richard Shockey'; ik Fältström'; i...@ietf.org; 'Patr@core3.amsl.com;
'Phillip Hallam-Baker'
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
But I don't think we can say that relevent members of the IETF
Dear Herve,
According to reports from developers of Internet audio applications
and
operators of Internet audio services, there are no standardized,
high-quality audio codecs that meet all of the following three
conditions:
1. Are optimized for use in interactive Internet applications.
2.
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; k...@munnari.oz.au; 'Sam Hartman'; co...@ietf.org;
'Richard Shockey'; ik Fältström'; i...@ietf.org; 'Patr@core3.amsl.com;
'Phillip Hallam-Baker'
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
But I don't think
Subject: RE: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date:
Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 04:40:05PM +0100 Quoting Herve Taddei
(herve.tad...@huawei.com):
I think it was already pointed out a few times (at least see email from
Ingemar Johannson in November 2009), that this part needs
Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working
group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility
adapting or adopting?
- Original Message -
From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: co...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit
: Adrian Farrel adrian.far...@huawei.com
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: co...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
adapting or adopting?
- Original Message -
From: Russ
I like that.
On 2010-01-08 18:14, Russ Housley wrote:
Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working
group
Hi Ben,
I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement
to
be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if it
is
strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement to
be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if it is
strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either
Before the IESG sent the proposed CODEC charter out for community review, we
received some concerns about this proposed charter. I had hoped these would be
discussed during the WG charter review. I'm raising these issues now to make
sure that the IESG has an opportunity to hear from the whole
On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Andy:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not
explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
Hi,
Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are
encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are equally
problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples:
1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder company
on one's products
Peter == Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im writes:
Peter On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Andy:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group
shall attempt to adhere to the spirit of
Brian West wrote:
Wouldn't this go over the MTU on the RTP packets and cause some issues on the
public internet?
1. What's this?
2. Send packets more frequently.
--Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Wouldn't this go over the MTU on the RTP packets and cause some issues on the
public internet?
/b
On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
full quality mono audio takes around 44.1/16bit linear, you can argue that
a little higher or lower is required for full transparency in some
Sending packets at lower intervals wouldn't fully solve issues related to
this... you should never go over the MTU in practice anyway... and you
shouldn't be running small packet times if you ever wish it to scale... sending
anything less than 10ms packet times is wasteful for both the client
Hrm No source... looks like I'll have to dig more.
/b
On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 1/4/10 5:39 PM, Brian West wrote:
Is the source and spec for the SPIRIT codec out there?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spiritdsp-ipmr-00
Richard Shockey [rich...@shockey.us] wrote:
I can see the motivation to pay big bucks for video codecs. Using
Mpeg4 can reduce your bandwidth costs and save real money. I can see
why there was a big incentive to save money on audio codecs in the
1990s.
At this point an audio codec is
Brian West [br...@freeswitch.org] wrote:
Wouldn't this go over the MTU on the RTP packets and cause some issues on the
public internet?
...
44100 samples/second * 2 bytes/sample * 10ms/frame = 882 bytes/frame.
You might have trouble with an X.25 network in the path.
Viideo is typically
I think CELT and SILK are both great codecs.. I was under the impression that
SILK ran at 32kHz and did internal resampling but that doesn't appear to be the
case. Either way we have six sample rates to pick from between the two codecs
giving you bandwidth vs quality options that really do fit
Is the source and spec for the SPIRIT codec out there? I would be interested
in trying this out in FreeSWITCH... I'm a codec whore... if you haven't
noticed. :P
/b
On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
The one you misses is SPIRIT's IP-MR codec. As you say, with the four
Brian West wrote:
I think CELT and SILK are both great codecs.. I was under the impression
that SILK ran at 32kHz and did internal resampling but that doesn't
appear to be the case. Either way we have six sample rates to pick from
between the two codecs giving you bandwidth vs quality options
On 1/4/10 5:39 PM, Brian West wrote:
Is the source and spec for the SPIRIT codec out there?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spiritdsp-ipmr-00
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Quoting Phillip Hallam-Baker:
MP3 and AC3 are the existing industry standards.
These codecs are rarely used for real-time communications, mostly
because of their high bitrates/poor quality for voice signals.
So the most we are going to have is a document that
brings together all the
74 matches
Mail list logo
