Subject: [codec] Support for the codec WG

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:54:31 -0700

I am writing this as a potential user and implementer of an Internet
patent free audio codec in a widely distributed situation.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the Stockholm meeting.  I
am in favor of the creation of a codec WG and, even if some of my
arguments for it may have been heard before, it may not be
completely useless to state them again:

  * Even if there has been some discussion about 'what is an
internet codec' and whether existing codecs may fit, or not, such a
definition, I think it is quite necessary to address the issue head
first, at least to establish what would be so specific about it, and
possibly to develop (a) codec(s) which address such specificity.
One such specificity, and an important one, IMHO, is multicast and
its possible applications.
One necessity of multicast is congestion control, and this in turn
calls for layered encoding, something which hasn't been thoroughly
investigated before, I think.  Even if it is sometime possible, for
some codecs, to add partial support for this when designing the RTP
transport (e.g. layered encoding for bandwidth extension, but not
for quality improvements or added channels), I think it would be
much better to design the codec with that option in mind from the
beginning.
Along the same lines, I tend to think that the design should go from
Internet specificities (not only in terms of packet loss, delay,
throughput etc. but also in terms of [possible] usage) to the
requirements: input from the internet community, as much as audio
expertise is needed, and that's why IETF is, in my opinion, the
correct place.

  * My usage of this audio codec supporting layered encoding would
be for a future free software project.  Because it is free software,
the codec needs to be patent free or royalty free, which excludes
G.718.  I understand that the IETF does not mandate this, but I am
wondering if a specific WG can choose to impose more restrictive
rules (for example, the dnsext WG requests the commitment of 5
people before accepting a document as WG item).

 * I think there is already a consensus that the audio expertise to
develop an audio codec here exists.  Even if the IETF does not have
a history of designing codecs, I can't think that historic legacy is
a valid argument against it. On the contrary, there are examples
where applying a fresh perspective to a domain traditionally
reserved was a good thing, for example FOSS vs traditional
development or Apple iPhone vs traditional cellphone companies.

Anyway if the WG is created and work on a codec which fulfills my
requirements, I will develop and publish under a free software
license an independent reference implementation for interoperability
verification purposes and provide comment and reviews based on this
implementation.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [email-masked]
Work: [email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:50:25 +0200

> completely useless to state them again:

Do feel free to "join" the meeting by listening to the audio and joining
the chatroom (I'm sure we will have people who can relay questions from
the chatroom to the physical room):

http://feed.verilan.com/ietf/stream02.m3u

xmpp:[email-masked]

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/