> 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
interest
Here's what I've seen (maybe some other ITU-T attendees can comment).
The charter of SG16 (and its "questions" - like WGs in the IETF) is handled
somewhat differently than the IETF charter process. The entire ITU-T
charter and organization is re-approved every study period (3 years), and
the orga
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) in
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,
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...@ie
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 ma
...@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
wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Mans Nilsson [mailto
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 alrea
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 c
odec-boun...@ietf.org [codec-boun...@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: I
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 candidate
[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 exactl
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 a
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 Wi
ailto:codec-boun...@ietf.org] De la part 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
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 pur
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 acceptab
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 ra
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,
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 conditi
Of
stephen 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
age-
> 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, De
igine-
De : codec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:codec-boun...@ietf.org] De la 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
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, stephen botzko
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 at the end (IMHO).
>> 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 the
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 b
>>>
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
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 e
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, Jean-Mar
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 cannot
Hello Christian,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:27, Christian Hoene 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, mediaservers...) and in termi
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 pol
From: codec-boun...@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)
>
Quoting stephen botzko :
> 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 agree here. We shoul
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 plate-for
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 IT
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
>
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
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
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs
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 dev
tf.org [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
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 :
> Hi Jean-Marc,
>
> I don't think anything "has been show
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.
Arg
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
; ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG 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
Yes, it very nicely captures the spirit of the BoF's charter discussion to date.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: codec-boun...@ietf.org
To: Russ Housley
Cc: co...@ietf.org ; ietf@ietf.org ;
i...@ietf.org
Sent: Fri Jan 08 21:43:49 2010
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Int
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.
In
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
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
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Farrel"
To: "Russ Housley"
Cc: ; ;
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
"adapting" or "adopting"?
- Original Message -
From: "R
"adapting" or "adopting"?
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Housley"
Cc: ; ;
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 further:
Althou
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
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
el Jaeggli
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:45 AM
> 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
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
etf.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:
>
-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 Cod
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
condition
Let me suggest to substitute "Making it easy to redistribute" with "Making
it easy to redistribute and use".
Shareware and Trialware are often freely redistributable, but not
necessarily free to use in a monetary sense. The mechanisms that make
Trial/Shareware not freely usable are often partly o
> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre 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
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 ac
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
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
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 eit
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 unencumber
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 ope
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 cod
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
___
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 an
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 s
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 lis
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
https://w
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 opti
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
> cod
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
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 relev
76 matches
Mail list logo