MCQUADE, IAN (IAN.MCQUADE@TELEWARE.CO.UK)
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:36:24 -0000
Not to get annoyed (but i'm going to anyway) but my colleague wrote a 726
codec (available from james.pringle@teleware.co.uk if you ask nicely) and
we've been developing with this in mind and now you're asking us to use
microsnot standard codecs which we wanted to use in the first place 2 years
ago?
bah humbug - i'm cancelling christmas
oh well at least we get a bit more MS compatibility/interoperability
Ian McQuade
TeleWare PLC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Eliot [SMTP:charle@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 1:05 AM
> To: martin.dragomirecky@cisco.com; Brian Cruickshank
> Cc: Anthony Baxter; IETF VPIM List
> Subject: RE: [VPIM] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
>
> One problem with G.726 is that Windows desktops neither source nor sink
> it, so you are looking at several unpleasant alternatives: (1) convince
> Microsoft to ship G.726 codecs in some future product and wait for
> everybody to install it; or (2) convince every UM vendor or email client
> vendor to install a G.726 codec on machines; or (3) burden VM and UM
> servers with transcoding burdens.
>
> G.726 was an OK option when the problem was limited to server-to-server
> interop, but is not a good option when the (explicit) problem is to
> facilitate desktop-to-desktop voicemail.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dragomirecky [mailto:mxd@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:13 AM
> To: Brian Cruickshank
> Cc: Charles Eliot; Anthony Baxter; IETF VPIM List
> Subject: Re: [VPIM] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
>
>
> would g.726 32k be another option, one virtue being compat w/ vpim 2?
>
> > Brian Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> > To me, there are the following pros/cons to G.711 and MS-GSM:
> >
> > Advantages to MS-GSM:
> > - Less Storage Space
> > - Faster to download to client
> > - Faster to send between servers
> >
> > Advantages to G.711:
> > - Better Voice Quality
> > - "Universal" Client Support
> > - Fewer MIPs / lower complexity / easy to implement
> >
> > Storage Space:
> > With 72Gig drives available and storage capacity following Moore's
> Law, I
> > think it is fair to say that the 'Less Storage Space' argument will
> become
> > less and less of a factor over time. I understand that there are size
> limits
> > on mailboxes which come into play but if this is of paramount concern
> then
> > perhaps the Unified Messaging vendor would want to transcode into a
> lower
> > bitrate format than MS-GSM (e.g G.729A, G.723.1, etc.). If the VPIM
> codec was
> > G.711 then this would be more easily accommodated than if it was
> MS-GSM, and
> > with better voice quality.
> >
> > Download to Client:
> > Because G.711 is such a light-weight codec in terms of the CPU
> required to
> > convert 16b linear to / from G.711, vendors can easily transcode VPIM
> messages
> > into whatever codec they prefer for downloading messages to
> low-bandwidth
> > clients. If the preferred client codec is MS-GSM, then the 'Fewer
> MIPS'
> > advantage for G.711 is nullified but if the preferred client codec is
> NOT
> > MS-GSM (e.g. it could be G.723.1 for a Voice over IP connection) then
> the
> > 'Fewer MIPs' and 'Voice Quality' advantages for G.711 become even more
> > important.
> >
> > Faster to Send Between Servers:
> > To me, the strongest argument for MS-GSM is that it takes ~ 1/4 of the
> > bandwidth to send an MS-GSM encoded voice message between 2 universal
> > messaging servers than it takes to send a G.711 encoded message.
> This
> > translates into a lower operational cost to the service provider.
> With the
> > 'cost per managed bit' dropping in half every 9 months, however, this
> may not
> > be a significant factor for very long.
> >
> > I think that the main advantages of G.711 - ease of implementation,
> universal
> > client support and better voice quality - will make it simpler for
> vendors to
> > adopt and will keep the intelligibility of voice messages high.
> >
> > Brian Cruickshank
> > Nortel Networks
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Eliot [mailto:charle@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 8:12 PM
> > To: Anthony Baxter
> > Cc: IETF VPIM List
> > Subject: RE: [VPIM] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
> >
> > The ability to take voicemail offline, ie to download onto your laptop
> > and read/reply without an active connection, has been one of the most
> > compelling scenarios for unified messaging adoption by corporate road
> > warriers. I'll try to dig up reference studies.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Baxter [mailto:anthony@interlink.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:21 AM
> > To: Charles Eliot
> > Cc: IETF VPIM List
> > Subject: Re: [VPIM] RE: 3GPP-T-WG3 codecs
> >
> > >>> "Charles Eliot" wrote
> > > Turns out - after much sighing and gnashing of teeth - that there is
> > no
> > > patent issue. MS-GSM implements the GSM codec, and the proposed RFC
> > > describes how to format a GSM bitstream in such a way that the
> MS-GSM
> > > codec can read it.
> > >
> > > The balance between file size and desktop ubiquity is always going
> to
> > be
> > > tricky. I'm leaning these days towards G.711, but as Eric Burger
> > pointed
> > > out there is still a lot of slow-link dialup going on out there.
> >
> > As I mentioned in my last mail, though - surely this is more of an
> > issue for real time voice, like a phone call, rather than
> > store-and-forward
> > as for voicemail?
> >
> > If you are working with low bandwidth clients, I see no reason why
> > you couldn't offer a voicemail listen page (say, in a webmail type
> > situation) that sends the data in a more compressed format - has
> > there been any studies done on how many of those low-bandwidth users
> > will actually be pulling their email down to their local PCs, versus
> > leaving it on a webmail service (hotmail, or whatever)?
> >
> > Anthony
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet,
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
> For further information visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet,
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
For further information visit:
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 14 2000 - 11:37:27 IST