Skip to main content

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