Subject: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

From: Jason Fischl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:18:22 -0700

All,

I would like to request agenda time inside the DISPATCH meeting to propose
the formation of a new working group to define a Proposed Standard wideband
audio codec.

The text of the proposal is below. Comments, questions, and suggestions
welcomed.

Regards, 
Jason

Internet Wideband Audio Codec (IWAC)
Mailing Lists: TBD
Chairs: TBD
Area Directorate: Real Time Applications (RAI)

Purpose:

This new working group would be chartered with the purpose of collecting
expertise within the IETF in order to review the design of audio codecs
specifically for use with the Internet. Unlike other SDOs, these codecs
would be optimized for use on the Internet, and as much as possible choose
technology that does not require paying patent royalties.

The Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (iLBC)  work was done in AVT but it was felt
that subsequent work should not be done in the AVT working group. This new
working group will have as its primary purpose the standardization of a
multi-purpose audio codec that can be used in various situations on the
Internet. Some of the proposed Internet-specific requirements include:
* scalable and adaptive bit rate;
* various sampling rate profiles from narrow-band to super-wideband;
* scalable complexity;
* low latency; and 
* resilience to packet loss.

There are a number of wide-band capable codecs defined by other SDOs. For
instance, G.722 is seeing adoption in Enterprise applications since it is
relatively simple and low-cost to deploy. However, it has a high, fixed
bitrate and is not appropriate for mobile applications where spectrum
efficiency is important or in consumer applications where available
bandwidth is fluctuating or limited. G.722.2 (AMR-wideband) has been adopted
by the 3GPP as a wideband standard for mobile applications. G.722.2 is
relatively high cost due to patent royalties and is seeing minimal
deployments outside of mobile handsets making it challenging to create
wideband experiences on Internet-capable mobile devices when extending
beyond the mobile network. In other cases, proprietary codecs are being
adopted which further create islands with no interoperability unless
widespread transcoding is performed. Transcoding leads to higher costs and
lower quality. 

The goal of this working group is to define a single codec with multiple
profiles which can be made available on a wide variety of Internet-capable
devices including low-power, mobile devices as well as devices capable of
utilizing high quality, high bitrate audio.

Proposed Deliverables:

1) Requirements for wideband, Internet audio codec(s).
2) Algorithm description for wideband, Internet audio codec(s) as Proposed
Standard. 
3) Specification of payload format(s) for defined codecs as Proposed
Standard

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:18:32 -0400

Smells to me either a binary situation:

Best Case: A bunch of people know exactly what they want and they just  
need to document it. Do it in AVT.

Worst Case: We know what we need in terms of requirements, but we are  
not sure how to get there. Smells like a math problem. Do it in the  
IRTF.

Either way, I don't see a work group here.

Just a personal opinion.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Jason Fischl wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:45:53 +0300

Hi,
Like you mention other SDOs like ITU-T are doing just that. They have the
expertise to specify, and evaluate the result. These SDOs can receive
requirements and select a proper codec based on the requirements.

As for the other reasons:

1. Defining a codec in the IETF or even in MPEG / ITU-T does not make it a
mandatory part of a system solution, this is done by other standard bodies
like 3GPP, ETSI.

2. The IETF, similar to other standard bodies is not rubber stamping a
specific solution, so you will most probably see in the final result some
technology that carry IPR.

3. If this group will be established, you will probably see here the audio
experts now working in ITU-T arguing the same issues since they are the
expertise you need and they work for the same companies that are already
members of IETF. 

I think that if you have a specific codec in mind you  can make it publicly
available maybe with quality results and standardized in AVT a payload
specification.

BTW: The ITU is keeping a list of codecs (Not only ITU-T ones) in a table
that describes their features. 

Regards
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Jason Fischl
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

All,

Regards, 
Jason

Purpose:

Proposed Deliverables:

---

From: "Scott Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:17:35 -0400

> technology that does not require paying patent royalties.

This last: "as much as possible choose technology that does not require
paying patent royalties" is a bit of a minefield.  The IETF IPR regime
is not a good one for even checking whether or not you are getting that
result (in some ways our disclosure policies amount to "don't ask don't
tell"), much less making it enforceable.  Other SDOs have 'membership'
and IPR provisions that at least make it possible to make agreements
about mutual licensing among participants - the IETF does not have any
such structures.

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 08:28:13 -0700

Roni,

Sorry, we have here a fundamental disagreement.
The IETF is chartered for Internet standards and may or may not chose solutions that apply to ITU-T networks.
The Internet has different criteria than ITU-T networks may have.
A worldwide Internet standard for a wideband codec will be very beneficial IMO.

Henry

On 5/28/09 9:45 AM, "Roni Even" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

Regards
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

All,

Regards,
Jason

Purpose:

Proposed Deliverables:

---

From: Jason Fischl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:37:21 -0700

> need to document it. Do it in AVT.
I think it is closer to this case. The issue with doing this in AVT is that
the expertise required to review an audio codec may be quite different from
what is available in AVT. If we do decide to do the work in AVT, we'll need
to update the charter as it explicitly forbids codec work.

>From AVT charter: 
>>> - to develop payload formats for new media codecs, and to document
>>> best-current practices in payload format design. The group
>>> continues to be precluded from work on codecs themselves because of
>>> overlap with the other standards bodies, and because the IETF does not
>>> have the ability to effectively review new codecs. An exception was
>>> made for the freeware iLBC codec on a highly experimental basis, but
>>> acceptance of new codec work is unexpected and subject to rechartering.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:56:18 +0300

Hi,
A small correction.
iLBC work was not done in AVT it was done by Global IP Sound. The AVT just
published a specification of the codec as an experimental RFC. I want to
assume that you are not proposing such a method to define a codec but want
an open for all way to contribute to a codec based on approved requirements

I also have a suggestion to send a liaison to ITU-T SG16 asking for the
comparison table they have on all codecs (we can add the ones that are
missing if there are) in order not to create a yet another same codec.

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

All,

Regards, 
Jason

Purpose:

Proposed Deliverables:

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:35 -0500

Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WGHi, Henry,

I may have misunderstood Roni's point, but I thought that he was saying that audio codec types don't participate in the IETF today, because the IETF does not develop audio codecs (and AVT is prohibited by charter from producing one, because of a stated belief that we don't have the expertise in the IETF to do this work).

Thanks,

Spencer
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Henry Sinnreich 
  To: Roni Even ; Jason Fischl ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

  Roni,

  Henry

    Hi,

    Regards
    Roni Even

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
    Of Jason Fischl
    Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:18 AM
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

    All,

    Regards,
    Jason

    Purpose:

    Proposed Deliverables:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:39:37 +0300

Spencer,

Thanks, you are right, I also want to point out that you may end up with
companies asking their audio expert to do also IETF work, adding more travel
and time budget on top of the work they are doing in MPEG and ITU.

Roni

From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich; Roni Even; Jason Fischl; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

Hi, Henry,

I may have misunderstood Roni's point, but I thought that he was saying that
audio codec types don't participate in the IETF today, because the IETF does
not develop audio codecs (and AVT is prohibited by charter from producing
one, because of a stated belief that we don't have the expertise in the IETF
to do this work).

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Henry Sinnreich <mailto:[email-masked]>  

To: Roni Even <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; Jason
<mailto:[email-masked]>  Fischl ; [email-masked] 

Roni,

Sorry, we have here a fundamental disagreement.
The IETF is chartered for Internet standards and may or may not chose
solutions that apply to ITU-T networks.
The Internet has different criteria than ITU-T networks may have.
A worldwide Internet standard for a wideband codec will be very beneficial
IMO.

Henry

Hi,

Regards
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----

All,

Regards,
Jason

Purpose:

Proposed Deliverables:

  _____

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:45:47 -0700

Spencer,

Yes, your points show exactly why we need a new WG in the IETF chartered specifically for a standard for an Internet voice (and why not video as well) codec.

The _global_ standard nature, royalty free, open source aspects will most likely warm the heart of most Internet folks.

The determining factor will be if there are contributors willing to do the work of writing the I-Ds for the requirements, algorithm, code and last but not least show  measurements about performance. I see signs that we may have very valuable contributions.

We can gage the interest for such a WG by the attendance in the BOF at the 75 IETF in July.
Please just give it a chance.
We may soon be in the fortunate position to finally have an Internet voice codec standard!

Henry

On 5/29/09 9:56 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi, Henry,

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message -----

To: Roni Even <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; Jason  Fischl <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; [email-masked]

Roni,

Henry

Hi,

Regards
Roni Even

-----Original  Message-----

All,

Regards,
Jason

Purpose:

Proposed Deliverables:

________________________________

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:54:05 -0400

By that model, the IETF should do work on any and every application.
a) We do not have the capacity
b) more importantly, we do not have the expertise.

Codecs is a very good example.  It is a highly specialized field, with 
its own technology base.  None of our leadership or structures are 
designed to have that expertise.  Other groups do have that expertise.

The very fact that AVT, which would be the only place in the IETF that 
could vaguely consider undertaking such work, was explicitly chartered 
not to do this reflects the sensible decision for us to stay out of 
other people's playgrounds.  (Which is fair since we expect them to stay 
out of ours.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>   Spencer,
> 
> Yes, your points show exactly why we need a new WG in the IETF chartered 
> specifically for a standard for an Internet voice (and why not video as 
> well) codec.
> 
> The _global_ standard nature, royalty free, open source aspects will 
> most likely warm the heart of most Internet folks.
> 
> The determining factor will be if there are contributors willing to do 
> the work of writing the I-Ds for the requirements, algorithm, code and 
> last but not least show  measurements about performance. I see signs 
> that we may have very valuable contributions.
> 
>     I may have misunderstood Roni's point, but I thought that he was
>     saying that audio codec types don't participate in the IETF today,
>     because the IETF does not develop audio codecs (and AVT is
>     prohibited by charter from producing one, because of a stated belief
>     that we don't have the expertise in the IETF to do this work).
>      
>     Thanks,
>      
>     Spencer
> 
> 
>         *From:*  Henry  Sinnreich <mailto:[email-masked]>  
>          
>         *To:* Roni Even <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; Jason  Fischl
>         <mailto:[email-masked]>  ; [email-masked]
>          
>         *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:28  AM
>          
>         *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form  Internet Wideband
>         Audio Codec WG
>          
> 
>         Roni,
> 
>         The IETF is chartered for Internet standards and may or may  not
>         chose solutions that apply to ITU-T networks.
>             From: [email-masked]
>             [mailto:[email-masked]]  On Behalf
>             Of Jason Fischl
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:09:26 -0700

Joel,

>b) more importantly, we do not have the expertise.

How do you know this before even counting the volunteering contributors?

Henry

On 5/29/09 10:54 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:14:48 +0300

Henry,

You can ask it on the mailing list, no need for a session. I would just
suggest that it will be done not on dispatch mailing list because if any
audio coding expert is subscribed to a list it will be AVT and not Dispatch.

BTW: I forwarded the email to AVT and there are some people responding
there, again they are not on Dispatch

Roni 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:09 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

Joel,

Henry

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:37:04 -0500

Roni,
 
It would be helpful then if you could summarize the AVT opinions on this
topic, including pointers to the most relevant discussions. 
 
Thanks,
Mary. 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:15 PM
To: 'Henry Sinnreich'; 'Joel M. Halpern'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec
WG

Henry,

You can ask it on the mailing list, no need for a session. I would just
suggest that it will be done not on dispatch mailing list because if any
audio coding expert is subscribed to a list it will be AVT and not
Dispatch.

Roni 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:09 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec
WG

Joel,

Henry

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>         A worldwide Internet  standard for a wideband codec will be
very
>         beneficial  IMO.
>             Like you mention other SDOs like ITU-T are  doing just
that.
>             They have the
>             2. The IETF, similar to other standard  bodies is not
rubber
>             stamping a
>             3. If this group will be established, you will probably
see
>             here  the audio
>             expertise you need and they work for the same companies
that
>             are  already
>             members of IETF.
>
>             I think that if you have a specific codec  in mind you
can
>             make it publicly
>             The text of the proposal is below. Comments,  questions,
and
>              suggestions
>             This new  working group would be chartered with the
purpose
>             of collecting
>             expertise  within the IETF in order to review the design
of
>             audio  codecs
>             that subsequent work should not be done in the AVT
working
>             group. This new
>             relatively simple and low-cost to  deploy. However, it has
a
>             high, fixed
>             bandwidth is fluctuating or limited. G.722.2
(AMR-wideband)
>             has been adopted
>             by the 3GPP as a wideband standard for  mobile
applications.
>             G.722.2 is
>             relatively high cost due to patent  royalties and is
seeing
>             minimal
>             The goal of this working  group is to define a single
codec
>             with multiple
>             3) Specification of payload format(s) for defined  codecs
as
>              Proposed

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:17:45 +0300

Hi,

I think Roni touches upon an important point here. The first question we 
need to answer (not only for this proposal; for any proposal) is whether 
or not the IETF in general and RAI in particular have the expertise to 
do this or at least review it when it is done. Comments?

Cheers,

Gonzalo