Subject: Re: [AVT] [codec] Updated Agenda for Codec BOF

From: "Andrew Sviridenko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:40:05 +0400

Dear all-

SPIRIT DSP is interested to contribute to the IETF codec WG / BOF, and
present our IPMR wideband codec on July 30, along with SILK.

During the last 17 years (since 1992) SPIRIT DSP speech experts designed
and developed several proprietary codecs actually deployed by many
global leading telecom OEMs and semiconductor vendors-
http://www.spiritdsp.com/customers/

SPIRIT IPMR is multi-rate, scalable, adaptive, wideband codec
specifically designed for IP-based communications several years ago-
WGLC on draft-ietf-avt-rtp-ipmr-04

SPIRIT IPMR is-
- multi-rate, scalable, adaptive, wideband codec,
- low latency,
- delivers generally better voice quality than Speex,
- robust to packet loss,
- we have both PC and mobile (low MIPS) implementations,
- licensed and deployed by many leading companies, including Adobe and
Oracle, as well as multiple Asia-based telecom operators and telecom
OEMs,
- patent-free,
- payload already submitted to IETF.

SPIRIT would like to contribute to the codec WG / BOF of IETF, and help
create wideband codec standard for IP-communications and global voice
interoperability.

We can open-source SPIRIT IPMR if needed to make it part of the
standard.
We are also open to partner with bigger companies in this group if
needed to make IPMR codec part of the standard.

Please let us present our SPIRIT IPMR wideband codec on July 30, along
with SILK. Slava Borilin from SPIRIT DSP will join the WG / BOF.

Thank you,
Andrew Sviridenko
SPIRIT DSP, www.spiritDSP.com, Voice & Video Engine Experts

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'stephen botzko'; 'Ingemar Johansson S'; Slava Borilin;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [codec] Updated Agenda for Codec BOF

On 7/10/09 10:43 AM, Roni Even wrote:
> Hi,
> I still fail to see what is the value in presenting one, two or three
> codecs. 

Present them as existence proofs (yes, we can!) and provide lessons
learned as input to the kind of work that a Codec WG would pursue. We
need to know that it is within the realm of possibility for a Codec WG
to be successful.

> I saw that there was a request to present a third one. 

Which?

> I can agree that there are people who can present codecs as a
suggested
> solution including existing ones. 

No. As far as I can see these are *not* suggested solutions. The point
is show that we have the expertise within the IETF to pursue this work,
to learn how those codecs were developed, and to judge whether we think
even better codecs could be developed by a Codec WG.

> Since there is no charter yet under which
> the codecs are to be specified it may serve as a tutorial on codecs. 

Given that the IETF has not traditionally been home to codec work, I
think that a very brief tutorial on what's involved in such work would
be quite beneficial.

> So if
> we open to codec presentation in the BOF let allow everyone to present
their
> codecs including ITU and MPEG ones and spend the whole BOF of the
different
> codecs technologies. 

Don't be ridiculous. Two or three proof points should be plenty.

> If the idea behind this presentation is to show specific functionality

I don't think that's the idea.

> than
> instead it will be more fruitful to present requirements, since I
could see
> from the list discussion that there is no consensus even between the
current
> proponents what the requirements are.

Discussion of existence proofs and lessons learned from previous codec
work is not at odds with discussion of requirements.

Peter

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