draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-07

[フレーム]

Network Working Group JM. Valin
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track C. Bran
Expires: April 27, 2015 Plantronics
 October 24, 2014
 WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Requirements
 draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-07
Abstract
 This document outlines the audio codec and processing requirements
 for WebRTC client application and endpoint devices.
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 April 27, 2015.
Copyright Notice
 Copyright (c) 2014 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
 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.
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft WebRTC Audio October 2014
Table of Contents
 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 3. Codec Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 4. Audio Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 5. Acoustic Echo Cancellation (AEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 6. Legacy VoIP Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
 An integral part of the success and adoption of the Web Real Time
 Communications (WebRTC) will be the voice and video interoperability
 between WebRTC applications. This specification will outline the
 audio processing and codec requirements for WebRTC client
 implementations.
2. Terminology
 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Codec Requirements
 To ensure a baseline level of interoperability between WebRTC
 clients, a minimum set of required codecs are specified below. If
 other suitable audio codecs are available for the browser to use, it
 is RECOMMENDED that they are also be included in the offer in order
 to maximize the possibility to establish the session without the need
 for audio transcoding.
 WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to implement the following audio codecs:
 o Opus [RFC6716] with the payload format specified in
 [I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-opus].
 o G.711 PCMA and PCMU with the payload format specified in section
 4.5.14 of [RFC3551].
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft WebRTC Audio October 2014
 o [RFC3389] comfort noise (CN). Receivers MUST support RFC3389 CN
 for streams encoded with G.711 or any other supported codec that
 does not provide its own CN. Since Opus provides its own CN
 mechanism, the use of RFC3389 CN with Opus is NOT RECOMMENDED.
 Use of DTX/CN by senders is OPTIONAL.
 o The audio/telephone-event media format as specified in [RFC4733].
 WebRTC clients are REQUIRED to be able to generate and consume the
 following events:
 +------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
 |Event Code | Event Name | Reference |
 +------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
 | 0 | DTMF digit "0" | RFC4733 |
 | 1 | DTMF digit "1" | RFC4733 |
 | 2 | DTMF digit "2" | RFC4733 |
 | 3 | DTMF digit "3" | RFC4733 |
 | 4 | DTMF digit "4" | RFC4733 |
 | 5 | DTMF digit "5" | RFC4733 |
 | 6 | DTMF digit "6" | RFC4733 |
 | 7 | DTMF digit "7" | RFC4733 |
 | 8 | DTMF digit "8" | RFC4733 |
 | 9 | DTMF digit "9" | RFC4733 |
 | 10 | DTMF digit "*" | RFC4733 |
 | 11 | DTMF digit "#" | RFC4733 |
 +------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
 For all cases where the client is able to process audio at a sampling
 rate higher than 8 kHz, it is RECOMMENDED that Opus be offered before
 PCMA/PCMU. For Opus, all modes MUST be supported on the decoder
 side. The choice of encoder-side modes is left to the implementer.
 Clients MAY use the offer/answer mechanism to signal a preference for
 a particular mode or ptime.
 For additional information on implementing codecs other than the
 mandatory-to-implement codecs listed above, refer to
 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop].
4. Audio Level
 It is desirable to standardize the "on the wire" audio level for
 speech transmission to avoid users having to manually adjust the
 playback and to facilitate mixing in conferencing applications. It
 is also desirable to be consistent with ITU-T recommendations G.169
 and G.115, which recommend an active audio level of -19 dBm0.
 However, unlike G.169 and G.115, the audio for WebRTC is not
 constrained to have a passband specified by G.712 and can in fact be
 sampled at any sampling rate from 8 kHz to 48 kHz and up. For this
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft WebRTC Audio October 2014
 reason, the level SHOULD be normalized by only considering
 frequencies above 300 Hz, regardless of the sampling rate used. The
 level SHOULD also be adapted to avoid clipping, either by lowering
 the gain to a level below -19 dBm0, or through the use of a
 compressor.
 Assuming 16-bit PCM with a value of +/-32767, -19 dBm0 corresponds to
 a root mean square (RMS) level of 2600. Only active speech should be
 considered in the RMS calculation. If the client has control over
 the entire audio capture path, as is typically the case for a regular
 phone, then it is RECOMMENDED that the gain be adjusted in such a way
 that active speech have a level of 2600 (-19 dBm0) for an average
 speaker. If the client does not have control over the entire audio
 capture, as is typically the case for a software client, then the
 client SHOULD use automatic gain control (AGC) to dynamically adjust
 the level to 2600 (-19 dBm0) +/- 6 dB. For music or desktop sharing
 applications, the level SHOULD NOT be automatically adjusted and the
 client SHOULD allow the user to set the gain manually.
 The RECOMMENDED filter for normalizing the signal energy is a second-
 order Butterworth filter with a 300 Hz cutoff frequency.
 It is common for the audio output on some devices to be "calibrated"
 for playing back pre-recorded "commercial" music, which is typically
 around 12 dB louder than the level recommended in this section.
 Because of this, clients MAY increase the gain before playback.
5. Acoustic Echo Cancellation (AEC)
 It is plausible that the dominant near to mid-term WebRTC usage model
 will be people using the interactive audio and video capabilities to
 communicate with each other via web browsers running on a notebook
 computer that has built-in microphone and speakers. The notebook-as-
 communication-device paradigm presents challenging echo cancellation
 problems, the specific remedy of which will not be mandated here.
 However, while no specific algorithm or standard will be required by
 WebRTC compatible clients, echo cancellation will improve the user
 experience and should be implemented by the endpoint device.
 WebRTC clients SHOULD include an AEC or some other form of echo
 control and if that is not possible, the clients SHOULD ensure that
 the speaker-to-microphone gain is below unity at all frequencies to
 avoid instability when none of the client has echo control. For
 clients that do not control the audio capture and playback hardware,
 it is RECOMMENDED to support echo cancellation between devices
 running at slightly different sampling rates, such as when a webcam
 is used for microphone.
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft WebRTC Audio October 2014
 Clients SHOULD allow the entire AEC and/or the non-linear processing
 (NLP) to be turned off for applications, such as music, that do not
 behave well with the spectral attenuation methods typically used in
 NLPs. Similarly, clients SHOULD have the ability to detect the
 presence of a headset and disable echo cancellation.
 For some applications where the remote client may not have an echo
 canceller, the local client MAY include a far-end echo canceller, but
 if that is the case, it SHOULD be disabled by default.
6. Legacy VoIP Interoperability
 The codec requirements above will ensure, at a minimum, voice
 interoperability capabilities between WebRTC client applications and
 legacy phone systems that support G.711.
7. IANA Considerations
 This document makes no request of IANA.
 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
 RFC.
8. Security Considerations
 Implementers should consider whether the use of VBR is appropriate
 for their application based on [RFC6562]. Encryption and
 authentication issues are beyond the scope of this document.
9. Acknowledgements
 This draft incorporates ideas and text from various other drafts. In
 particularly we would like to acknowledge, and say thanks for, work
 we incorporated from Harald Alvestrand and Cullen Jennings.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC3551] Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and
 Video Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551,
 July 2003.
 [RFC3389] Zopf, R., "Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload for
 Comfort Noise (CN)", RFC 3389, September 2002.
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft WebRTC Audio October 2014
 [RFC4733] Schulzrinne, H. and T. Taylor, "RTP Payload for DTMF
 Digits, Telephony Tones, and Telephony Signals", RFC 4733,
 December 2006.
 [RFC6716] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, "Definition of the
 Opus Audio Codec", RFC 6716, September 2012.
 [RFC6562] Perkins, C. and JM. Valin, "Guidelines for the Use of
 Variable Bit Rate Audio with Secure RTP", RFC 6562, March
 2012.
 [I-D.ietf-payload-rtp-opus]
 Spittka, J., Vos, K., and J. Valin, "RTP Payload Format
 for Opus Speech and Audio Codec", draft-ietf-payload-rtp-
 opus-03 (work in progress), July 2014.
10.2. Informative References
 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop]
 Proust, S., Berger, E., Feiten, B., Bogineni, K., Lei, M.,
 and E. Marocco, "Additional WebRTC audio codecs for
 interoperability with legacy networks.", draft-ietf-
 rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-00 (work in progress),
 September 2014.
Authors' Addresses
 Jean-Marc Valin
 Mozilla
 331 E. Evelyn Avenue
 Mountain View, CA 94041
 USA
 Email: jmvalin@jmvalin.ca
 Cary Bran
 Plantronics
 345 Encinial Street
 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
 USA
 Phone: +1 206 661-2398
 Email: cary.bran@plantronics.com
Valin & Bran Expires April 27, 2015 [Page 6]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /