[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-valin-codec-guidelines) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6569

Network Working Group                                          JM. Valin
Internet-Draft                                              Octasic Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Borilin
Expires: July 25, 2011                                        SPIRIT DSP
                                                                  K. Vos
                                                 Skype Technologies S.A.
                                                           C. Montgomery
                                                     Xiph.Org Foundation
                                                                 R. Chen
                                                    Broadcom Corporation
                                                        January 21, 2011

          Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF


   This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and
   specifying a codec within the IETF.  These guidelines cover the
   development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and
   intellectual property issues.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Development Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Evaluation, Testing, and Characterization  . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Requirements Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Intellectual Property  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Relationship with Other SDOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

1.  Introduction

   This document describes a suggested process for work at the IETF on
   standardization of a codec that is optimized for use in interactive
   Internet applications and that can be widely implemented and easily
   distributed among application developers, service operators, and end

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

2.  Development Process

   The process outlined here is intended to make the work on an audio
   codec within the IETF transparent, predictable, and well organized.
   Such work might involve development of a completely new codec,
   adaptation of an existing codec to meet the requirements, or
   integration between two or more existing codecs that results in an
   improved codec combining the best aspects of each codec.  To enable
   such procedural transparency, the contributor of an existing codec
   must be willing to cede change control to the IETF and should have
   sufficient knowledge of the codec to assist in the work of adapting
   it or applying some of its technology to the development or
   improvemnet of other codecs.  Furthermore, contributors need to be
   aware that any codec that results from work within the IETF is likely
   to be different from any existing codec that was contributed to the
   Internet Standards Process.

   Work on codec development is expected to proceed as follows:

   1.  IETF participants will identify the requirements to be met by an
       Internet codec, in the form of an Internet-Draft.

   2.  Interested parties are encouraged to make contributions proposing
       existing or new codecs, or elements thereof, to the codec WG as
       long as these contributions are within the scope of the WG.
       Ideally, these contributions should be in the form of Internet
       Drafts, although other forms of contributions are also possible
       as discussed in [PROCESS] and in the IETF's Note Well.  As
       always, contributions to the IETF are subject, among other
       process oriented RFCs, to [PROCESS], [TRUST], and [IPR].
       Considering the field of technology, IPR transparency may be
       particularly high on the priority list of many codec WG
       participants.  Accordingly, contributors are specifically
       reminded of their IPR disclosure requirement, and all
       participants are reminded of the solicitation of the disclosure
       of third party IPR, both as codified in [IPR].

   3.  As contributions are received and discussed within the working
       group, the group should gain a clearer understanding of what is
       achievable within the design space.  As a result, the authors of
       the requirements document should iteratively clarify and improve
       their document to reflect the emerging working group consensus.
       This is likely to involve collaboration with IETF working groups
       in other areas, such as collaboration with working groups in the
       Transport area to identify important aspects of packet
       transmission over the Internet and to understand the degree of
       rate adaptation desirable, and with working groups in the RAI
       area to ensure that information about and negotiation of the

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

       codec can be easily represented at the signalling layer.  In
       parallel with this work, interested parties should evaluate the
       contributions at a higher level to see which requirements might
       be met by each codec.

   4.  Once a sufficient number of proposals has been received, the
       interested parties will identify the strengths, weaknesses, and
       innovative aspects of the contributed codecs.  This step will
       consider not only the codecs as a whole, but also key features of
       the individual algorithms (predictors, quantizers, transforms,

   5.  It is expected that none of the contributed codecs will meet all
       of the defined requirements.  Therefore, it is expected that IETF
       participants will accept a _baseline codec_ as a WG item to
       facilitate the development process.  This baseline codec will
       meet as many of the requirements as possible, but probably will
       need to be adjusted through an iterative development process in
       order to meet all of the requirements (or as many requirements as
       possible).  The baseline codec might be one of the contributed
       codecs (especially if it is the only codec that meets most of the
       requirements), a combination of two or more of the contributed
       codecs, or an entirely new codec.  None of the decisions taken at
       this step will be definitive.  In particular, IETF participants
       will not provide a "rubber stamp" for any contributed codec.

   6.  IETF participants should then attempt to iteratively improve each
       component of the baseline codec reference implementation, where
       by "component" we mean individual algorithms such as predictors,
       transforms, quantizers, and entropy coders.  The participants
       should proceed by trying new designs, applying ideas from the
       contributed codecs, evaluating "proof of concept" ideas, and
       using their expertise in codec development to improve the
       baseline codec.  Any aspect of the baseline codec might be
       changed (even the fundamental principles of the codec) or the
       participants might start over entirely by scrapping the baseline
       codec and designing a completely new one.  The overriding goal
       shall be to design a codec that will meet the requirements
       defined in the requirements document.  Given the IETF's open
       standards process, any interested party will be able to
       contribute to this work, whether or not they submitted an
       Internet-Draft for one of the contributed codecs.  The codec
       itself should be normatively specified with code in an Internet-

   7.  In parallel with work on the codec reference implementation,
       developers and other interested parties should perform evaluation
       of the codec as described under Section 3, IETF participants

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

       should define (within the AVT Working Group) the codec's payload
       format for use with the Real-time Transport Protocol [RTP], and
       application developers should start testing the codec by
       implementing it in code and deploying it in actual Internet
       applications to identify any potential problems.

   8.  Once IETF participants agree that the codec being developed meets
       the requirements, IETF participants can begin the task of
       characterizing the codec.  The characterization process is
       described under Section 3.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

3.  Evaluation, Testing, and Characterization

   Lab evaluation of the codec being developed should happen throughout
   the development process because it will help ensure that progress is
   being made toward fulfillment of the requirements.  There are many
   ways in which continuous evaluation can be performed.  For minor,
   uncontroversial changes to the codec it should usually be sufficient
   to use objective measurements (e.g., PESQ, PEAQ, and SegSNR)
   validated by informal subjective evaluation.  For more complex
   changes (e.g., when psychoacoustic aspects are involved) or for
   controversial issues, internal testing should be performed.  An
   example of internal testing would be to have individual participants
   rate the decoded samples using one of the established testing
   methodologies, such as ITU-R BS.1534 (MUSHRA).

   Throughout the process, it will be important to make use of the
   Internet community at large for real-world distributed testing.  This
   will enable many different people with different equipment and use
   cases to test the codec and report any problems they experience.  In
   the same way, third-party software developers will be encouraged to
   integrate the codec (with a warning about the bit-stream not being
   final) and provide feedback on its performance in real-world use

   Characterization of the final codec must be based on the reference
   implementation only (and not on any "private implementation").  This
   can be performed by independent testing labs or, if this is not
   possible, using the testing labs of the organizations that contribute
   to the Internet Standards Process.  Packet loss robustness should be
   evaluated using actual loss patterns collected from use over the
   Internet, rather than theoretical models.  The goals of the
   characterization phase are to:

   o  ensure that the requirements have been fulfilled

   o  guide the IESG in its evaluation of the resulting work

   o  assist application developers in understanding whether the codec
      is suitable for a particular application

   The exact methodology for the characterization phase is still subject
   to discussion within the working group.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

4.  Requirements Conformance

   It is the responsibility of the working group to define criteria for
   evaluating conformance, including but not limited to comparison tools
   and test vectors.  The following text provides suggestions for
   consideration by the working group:

   1.  Any codec specified by the IETF must include source code for a
       normative C89 implementation, documented in an Internet Draft
       destined for standards track RFC.  This implementation will be
       used to verify conformance of an implementation.  Although a text
       description of the algorithm should be provided, its use should
       be limited to helping the reader in understanding the source
       code.  Should the description contradict the source code, the
       latter shall take precedence.  For convenience, the source code
       may be provided in compressed form, with base64 encoding.

   2.  Because of the size of the codec's source code, it is possible
       that even after publishing the RFC, bugs would be found from time
       to time.  An errata of the RFC and its software description
       should be maintained, along with a public software repository
       containing the current reference implementation.

   3.  It is the intention of the group to allow the greatest possible
       choice of freedom in implementing the specification.
       Accordingly, the number of binding RFC2119 keywords is going to
       be the minimum still allowing for interopable implementations.
       In practice this generally means that only the decoder needs to
       be normative, so that the encoder can improve over time.  This
       also enables different tradeoffs between quality and complexity.

   4.  To reduce the risk of bias towards certain CPU/DSP architectures,
       ideally the decoder specification should not require "bit-exact"
       conformance with the reference implementation.  The output of a
       decoder implementation should only be "close enough" to the
       output of the reference decoder.  A comparison tool should be
       provided along with the codec to verify objectively that the
       output of a decoder is likely to be perceptually
       indistinguishable from that of the reference decoder.  However,
       an implementation may still wish to produce an output that is
       bit-exact with the reference implementation to simplify the
       testing procedure.

   5.  To ensure freedom of implementation, decoder-side only error
       concealment does not need to be specified, although the reference
       implementation should include the same PLC algorithm as used in
       the testing phase.  Is it up to the working group to decide
       whether minimum requirements on PLC quality will be required for

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

       compliance with the specification.  Obviously, any information
       signaled in the bitstream intended to aid PLC needs to be

   6.  An encoder implementation should not be required to make use of
       all the "features" (tools) in the bit-stream definition.
       However, the codec specification may require that an encoder
       implementation be able to generate any possible bit-rate.  Unless
       a particular "profile" is defined in the specification, the
       decoder must be able to decode all features of the bit-stream.
       The decoder must also be able to handle any combination of bits,
       even combinations that cannot be generated by the reference
       encoder.  It is recommended that the decoder specification shall
       define exactly how the decoder should react to "impossible"
       packets.  However, an encoder must never generate such packets
       that do not conform to the bit-stream definition.

   7.  Compressed test vectors should be provided as a means to verify
       conformance with the decoder specification.  These test vectors
       should exercise all paths in the decoder (100% code coverage).

   8.  While the exact encoder will not be specified, it is recommended
       to specify objective measurement targets for an encoder, below
       which use of a particular encoder implementation is not
       recommended.  For example, one such specification could be: "the
       use of an encoder whose PESQ MOS is less than 0.1 below the
       reference encoder in the following conditions is not

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

5.  Intellectual Property

   Producing an unencumbered codec is desirable for the following

   o  It is the experience of a wide variety of application developers
      and service providers that encumbrances such as licensing and
      royalties make it difficult to implement, deploy, and distribute
      audio applications for use by the Internet community.

   o  It is beneficial to have low-cost options whenever possible
      because standalone voice services are being commoditized and
      small, innovative development teams often cannot afford to pay
      per-channel licensing fees and royalties.

   o  Many market segments are moving away from selling hard-coded
      hardware devices and toward freely distributing end-user software;
      this is true of numerous large application providers and even
      telcos themselves.

   o  Compatibility with the licensing of typical open source
      applications implies the need to avoid encumbrances, including
      even the requirement to obtain a license for implementation,
      deployment, or use (even if the license does not require the
      payment of a fee).

   Therefore, a codec that can be widely implemented and easily
   distributed among application developers, service operators, and end
   users is preferred.  Many existing codecs that might fulfill some or
   most of the technical attributes listed above are encumbered in
   various ways.  For example, patent holders might require that those
   wishing to implement the codec in software, deploy the codec in a
   service, or distribute the codec in software or hardware need to
   request a license, enter into a business agreement, pay licensing
   fees or royalties, or adhere to other special conditions or
   restrictions.  Because such encumbrances have made it difficult to
   widely implement and easily distribute high-quality audio codecs
   across the entire Internet community, the working group prefers
   unencumbered technologies in a way that is consistent with BCP 78 and
   BCP 79.  In particular, the working group shall heed the preference
   stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer
   technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with
   claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing."  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 of adopting encumbered technologies;
   however, the working group will try to avoid encumbered technologies

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

   that require royalties or other encumbrances that would prevent such
   technologies from being easy to redistribute and use.

   The following guidelines will help to maximize the odds that the
   codec will be unencumbered:

   1.  In accordance with BCP 79 [IPR], contributed codecs should
       preferably use technologies with no known IPR claims or
       technologies with an offer of royalty-free (RF) licensing.

   2.  Whenever possible, the working group should use technologies that
       are perceived by the participants to be safer with regard to IPR

   3.  Contributors must disclose IPR as specified in BCP 79.

   4.  In cases where no RF license can be obtained regarding a patent,
       the group should consider alternative algorithms or methods, even
       if they result in lower quality, higher complexity, or otherwise
       less desirable characteristics (in most cases, the degradation
       will likely be small once the best alternative has been

   5.  In accordance with BCP 78 [TRUST], the source code for the
       reference implementation must be made available under a BSD-style
       license (or whatever license is defined as acceptable by the IETF
       Trust when the Internet-Draft defining the reference
       implementation is published).

   IETF participants should be aware that, given the way patents work in
   most countries, the resulting codec can never be guaranteed to be
   free of patent claims because some patents may not be known to the
   contributors, some patent applications may not be disclosed at the
   time the codec is developed, and only courts of law can determine the
   validity and breadth of patent claims.  However, these observations
   are no different within the Internet Standards Process than they are
   for standardization of codecs within other SDOs (or development of
   codecs outside the context of any SDO), and furthermore are no
   different for codecs than for other technologies worked on within the
   IETF.  In all these cases, the best approach is to minimize the risk
   of unknowingly incurring encrumbrance on existing patents.  Despite
   these precautions, participants need to understand that, practically
   speaking, it is nearly impossible to _guarantee_ that implementors
   will not incur encumbrance on existing patents.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

6.  Relationship with Other SDOs

   It is understood that other SDOs are also involved in the codec
   development and standardization, including but not necessarily
   limited to:

   o  The Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) of the
      International Telecommunication Union (ITU), in particular Study
      Group 16

   o  The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)

   o  The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)

   o  The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)

   o  The 3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2)

   It is important to ensure that such work does not constitute
   uncoordinated protocol development, of the kind described in
   [UNCOORD] in the following principle:

      [T]he IAB considers an essential principle of the protocol
      development process that only one SDO maintains design authority
      for a given protocol, with that SDO having ultimate authority over
      the allocation of protocol parameter code-points; defining the
      intended semantics, interpretation, and actions associated with
      those code-points.

   The work envisioned by this guidelines document is not
   "uncoordinated" in the sense described in the foregoing quote, for
   the following reasons:

   o  Internet signalling technologies are designed to enable the
      negotiation of any codecs that are supported in a particular
      application (such signalling technologies include the Session
      Initiation Protocol [SIP], Session Description Protocol [SDP], and
      the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol [XMPP] extensions
      for media negotiation as specified in [Jingle]).

   o  Internet transport technologies such as the Real-time Transport
      Protocol [RTP] (including secure transport as described in [SRTP])
      are designed to support any codec for which RTP packetization
      rules have been defined.

   o  The IETF codec working group will focus on issues that are
      specific to the Internet, including robustness to packet loss and
      other aspects of packet transmission over the Internet.  Issues

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

      that are specific to non-Internet transports (e.g., radio
      communication and circuit-switched networks) are specifically out
      of scope.

   Although there is already sufficient codec expertise available among
   IETF participants to complete the envisioned work, additional
   contributions are welcome within the framework of the Internet
   Standards Process, in the following ways:

   o  Individuals who are technical contributors to codec work within
      other SDOs can participate directly in codec work within the IETF.

   o  Other SDOs can contribute their expertise (e.g., codec
      characterization and evaluation techniques) and thus facilitate
      the testing of a codec produced by the IETF.

   o  Any SDO can provide input to IETF work through liaison statements.

   However, it is important to note that final responsibility for the
   development process and the resulting codec will remain with the IETF
   as governed by BCP 9 [PROCESS].

   Finally, there is precedent for the contribution of codecs developed
   elsewhere to the ITU-T (e.g., AMR Wideband was standardized
   originally within 3GPP).  This is a model to explore as the IETF
   coordinates further with the ITU-T in accordance with the
   collaboration guidelines defined in [COLLAB].

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

7.  Security Considerations

   The procedural guidelines for codec development do not have security
   considerations.  However, the resulting codec needs to take
   appropriate security considerations into account, for example as
   outlined in [DOS] and [SECGUIDE].

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

9.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank all the other people who contributed directly
   or indirectly to this document, including Jason Fischl, Gregory
   Maxwell, Alan Duric, Jonathan Christensen, Julian Spittka, Michael
   Knappe, Timothy Terriberry, Christian Hoene, Stephan Wenger and Henry
   Sinnreich.  We also like to thank Cullen Jennings and Gregory
   Lebovitz for their advice.  Special thanks to Peter Saint-Andre, who
   originally co-authored this document.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [IPR]      Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, March 2005.

   [PROCESS]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [TRUST]    Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide
              to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.

10.2.  Informative References

   [COLLAB]   Fishman, G. and S. Bradner, "Internet Engineering Task
              Force and International Telecommunication Union -
              Telecommunications Standardization Sector Collaboration
              Guidelines", RFC 3356, August 2002.

   [DOS]      Handley, M., Rescorla, E., and IAB, "Internet Denial-of-
              Service Considerations", RFC 4732, December 2006.

   [Jingle]   Ludwig, S., Saint-Andre, P., Egan, S., McQueen, R., and D.
              Cionoiu, "Jingle RTP Sessions", XSF XEP 0167, June 2009.

   [RTP]      Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [SDP]      Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

              Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.

   [SIP]      Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [SRTP]     Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [UNCOORD]  Bryant, S. and M. Morrow, "Uncoordinated Protocol

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

              Development Considered Harmful", RFC 5704, November 2009.

   [XMPP]     Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004.

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              Codec Guidelines                January 2011

Authors' Addresses

   Jean-Marc Valin
   Octasic Inc.
   4101, Molson Street
   Montreal, Quebec

   Email: jean-marc.valin@octasic.com

   Slava Borilin

   Email: borilin@spiritdsp.net

   Koen Vos
   Skype Technologies S.A.
   Stadsgarden 6
   Stockholm,   11645

   Email: koen.vos@skype.net

   Christopher Montgomery
   Xiph.Org Foundation

   Email: xiphmont@xiph.org

   Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
   Broadcom Corporation

   Email: rchen@broadcom.com

Valin, et al.             Expires July 25, 2011                [Page 19]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/