Additional WebRTC Audio Codecs for Interoperability
RFC 7875
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
06 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'To ensure a baseline of interoperability between WebRTC endpoints, a minimum set of required codecs is … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'To ensure a baseline of interoperability between WebRTC endpoints, a minimum set of required codecs is specified. However, to maximize the possibility of establishing the session without the need for audio transcoding, it is also recommended to include in the offer other suitable audio codecs that are available to the browser. This document provides some guidelines on the suitable codecs to be considered for WebRTC endpoints to address the use cases most relevant to interoperability.') |
|
2016-05-27
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-05-25
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-05-25
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7875">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-05-17
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7875">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-05-17
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2016-04-28
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-04-27
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-04-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-04-22
|
06 | Stephane Proust | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2016-04-22
|
06 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-06.txt |
|
2016-04-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2016-04-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I remember that the "but what about THIS audio codec?" discussions were pretty contentious for a while, and wanted to say that this … [Ballot comment] I remember that the "but what about THIS audio codec?" discussions were pretty contentious for a while, and wanted to say that this document does a really good job of handling that question. Thanks for producing it. |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2016-04-20
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2016-04-19
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2016-04-19
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2016-04-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2016-04-19
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] section 3: MOS could do with a reference |
|
2016-04-19
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2016-04-18
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Shucheng LIU's OPS DIR review: **** Editorial **** * Section 2, page 3: > > o Legacy networks: In this document, legacy … [Ballot comment] Shucheng LIU's OPS DIR review: **** Editorial **** * Section 2, page 3: > > o Legacy networks: In this document, legacy networks encompass the > conversational networks that are already deployed like the PSTN, > the PLMN, the IP/IMS networks offering VoIP services, including > 3GPP "4G" Evolved Packet System[TS23.002] Missing space in "Evolved Packet System[TS23.002]" * Section 2, page 3: > o PSTN:Public Switched Telephone Network Missing space. * Section 3, page 4: > Consequently, > a significant number of calls are likely to occur between terminals > supporting WebRTC endpoints and other terminals like mobile handsets, > fixed VoIP terminals, DECT terminals that do not support WebRTC > endpoints nor implement OPUS. Seems should s/terminals, DECT terminals/terminals, and DECT terminals/ * Section 3: each of the bullets is separated by two blank lines rather than a single one. * Section 4.1.1, page 5: > especially s/especially/specially/ * Section 4.1.3, page 5: > The payload format to be used for AMR-WB is described in [RFC4867] > with bandwidth efficient format and one speech frame encapsulated in > each RTP packets s/packets/packet/ * Section 4.2.1, page 6: > This include both mobile phone calls using GSM and 3G s/include/includes/ * Section 4.2.1, page 6: > such as, GSMA voice IMS profile for VoLTE in [IR.92]. Please remove the comma. * Section 4.2.1, page 6: > degrading the high efficiency over mobile radio access.References > for Missing space. * Section 4.2.3, page 7: > The payload format to be used for AMR is described in [RFC4867] with > bandwidth efficient format and one speech frame encapsulated in each > RTP packets. s/packets/packet/ |
|
2016-04-18
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2016-04-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Will Liushucheng performed the opsdir review. |
|
2016-04-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2016-04-15
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2016-04-15
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2016-04-14
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2016-04-14
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
|
2016-04-14
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-04-14
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2016-03-15
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shucheng LIU. |
|
2016-03-14
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-04-21 from 2016-03-17 |
|
2016-03-09
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2016-02-29
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-02-29
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
|
2016-02-27
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU |
|
2016-02-27
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU |
|
2016-02-25
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2016-02-25
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2016-02-25
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
|
2016-02-25
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop@ietf.org, alcoop@cisco.com, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop@ietf.org, alcoop@cisco.com, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@iii.ca> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-05.txt> (Additional WebRTC audio codecs for interoperability.) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'Additional WebRTC audio codecs for interoperability.' <draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-05.txt> as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract To ensure a baseline level of interoperability between WebRTC endpoints, a minimum set of required codecs is specified. However, to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need for audio transcoding, it is also recommended to include in the offer other suitable audio codecs that are available to the browser. This document provides some guidelines on the suitable codecs to be considered for WebRTC endpoints to address the most relevant interoperability use cases. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-17 |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2016-02-24
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2016-02-10
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2016-02-10
|
05 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-05.txt |
|
2016-01-27
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2016-01-27
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-27
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, YES (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document explains some additional audio codecs that WebRTC devices and browsers may wish to support and some of reasons that an implementation might choose to use that codec. It does not specify any mandatory to implement codecs for WebRTC. Working Group Summary Some people in the WG would like these codecs to be mandatory to implement for WebRTC browsers. Document Quality There are WebRTC devices (but not browsers) that implement theses codecs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd is Cullen Jennings. AD is Alissa Cooper. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The WG is well aware that some of the codecs referenced by this draft have IPR implications. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Got confirmations from Bo Stéphane Enrico Kalyani Espen Mia Bernhard who are all the people listed at authors in Section 7. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. One of the keys reason the codecs referenced in this draft are not MTI, is the IPR discussions in the WG. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG believes the things this document states are true. Much of the WG does not find that compelling enough to include these codecs in their products. The primary reason not to is concerns about them not being RF or not having sufficient coding efficiency. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing the RFC editor won't do a better job of than me. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Only draft is ietf-webrtc-audio and it is progressing. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. NA (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). NA (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA |
|
2016-01-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, YES (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document explains some additional audio codecs that WebRTC devices and browsers may wish to support and some of reasons that an implementation might choose to use that codec. It does not specify any mandatory to implement codecs for WebRTC. Working Group Summary Some people in the WG would like these codecs to be mandatory to implement for WebRTC browsers. Document Quality There are WebRTC devices (but not browsers) that implement theses codecs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd is Cullen Jennings. AD is Ben Campbell. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The WG is well aware that some of the codecs referenced by this draft have IPR implications. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Got confirmations from Bo Stéphane Enrico Kalyani Espen Mia Bernhard who are all the people listed at authors in Section 7. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. One of the keys reason the codecs referenced in this draft are not MTI, is the IPR discussions in the WG. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG believes the things this document states are true. Much of the WG does not find that compelling enough to include these codecs in their products. The primary reason not to is concerns about them not being RF or not having sufficient coding efficiency. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing the RFC editor won't do a better job of than me. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Only draft is ietf-webrtc-audio and it is progressing. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. NA (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). NA (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. NA (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA |
|
2016-01-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
|
2016-01-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2016-01-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-21
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2016-01-07
|
04 | Cullen Jennings | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-12-11
|
04 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-04.txt |
|
2015-12-10
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | Prob. need one more rev to deal with nits |
|
2015-12-10
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
|
2015-12-10
|
03 | Cullen Jennings | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-12-02
|
03 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-03.txt |
|
2015-11-04
|
02 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2015-11-04
|
02 | Sean Turner | Notification list changed to "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@iii.ca> |
|
2015-11-04
|
02 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Cullen Jennings |
|
2015-11-04
|
02 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2015-08-07
|
02 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-02.txt |
|
2015-04-16
|
01 | Sean Turner | This document now replaces draft-proust-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop instead of None |
|
2015-01-16
|
01 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01.txt |
|
2014-09-29
|
00 | Stephane Proust | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00.txt |