Subject: [AVT] next step in Sound level indication in RTP - summary

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:32:18 +0300

Hi,

Based on the discussion in the mailing list I see that people see value in
both solutions but as separate work.

I suggest that the authors of both drafts submit a new individual draft
addressing the issues that were made on the mailing  list.

The way I see it the major issue is to clarify the semantics of the level
parameter (maybe also try to define a better term for level) in both cases.

AVT chairs will look at updating the charter to adapt this work at AVT

Roni Even

AVT co-chair

From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 5:04 PM
To: 'IETF AVT WG'
Subject: next step in Sound level indication in RTP - should we adopt this
work

Hi,

I sent the email bellow to the mailing list after IETF 75.

The list discussion points that there is some interest in the work but the
two drafts are offering different solutions and have different requirements.
Even though both are trying to convey meta data about the sound level of the
audio stream the information has different use and therefore different
requirements. I think that the term "level" does not have the same meaning
in both cases.

The mixer to client provide normalized information as defined by the mixer
of the contributing streams to the mix. The use cases are for using the
information as a  UI tool that will help the participants to identify who
injects background noise or putting the conference on hold and mute them.
This solution will work with systems that has a UI but will probably not
work for PSTN telephony based audio conferences where there is no UI (the
analysis will most probably fail if done by automata).

The client to mixer case whose purpose is to help the mixer select the
contributing sources has led to discussion about the definition of level and
how to provide common information from different clients implementations.

My conclusion is that if we take this work we will have two separate
solutions defining a different parameter and semantics.

I would like to get feedback on the following two questions

1.       Should we adopt the work on sound level indication between the
mixer and client.

2.       Should we adopt the work on sound level indications between the
client and mixer

Please respond to these two questions

Thanks

Roni Even

AVT co-chair

From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:56 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Sound level indication in RTP

Hi,

During the IETF75 AVT Monday session  the topic of sound level indication
was presented.

To recap the topic there are two suggestions.

1.       Provide the sound level indication from the endpoint to the mixer,
this will help the mixer with selection the candidates to be mixed

2.       Provide the incoming sound levels of all the participants in the
mixed as measured by the mixer. This may be displayed to the conference
participants helping them to know who are the speaker and if there is
someone causing constant noise like typing.

We did not have enough time to discuss at the session and we are looking for
feedback in order to see how to continue with this work.

We want to know if this is a good idea, which of the two proposal is
interesting (maybe both). 

What use cases people see for sound level indications

Please respond so we can see if there is support for this work and to verify
the way forward.

Thanks

Roni Even

AVT co-chair