RE: [AVT] File format for EVRC/SMV vocoder

Hi all,

To my best knowledge, QT is supporting QCELP "codec" 
(in QT file format), not the .qcp file format.

Jay

> 
> Hi, Randy,
> 
> Are there any intellectual property issues with the qcp format?
> 
> Also, were the interoperable implementations of the qcp format really
> done independently?  My understanding is that Eudora is a Qualcomm
> product and that Apple acted merely as an integrator and distributer
> of the PureVoice technology from Qualcomm.  If these implementations
> are not independent it may be misleading for you to talk about
> interoperability.
> 
> -Pete
> 
> 
> Randall Gellens writes:
>  > At 1:52 PM +0100 3/11/03, Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB) wrote:
>  > 
>  > >  OK, but why has not this issue been brought up earlier?
>  > 
>  > Because of an unfortunate oversight.  Neither myself nor the other 
>  > authors of the evrc/smv draft were aware of the qcp 
> format.  I very 
>  > much regret this.  At the time we were working on the 
> evrc/smv draft, 
>  > we specified a file format to make the draft complete.  
> Had we been 
>  > aware of an existing format that was currently being used to 
>  > interoperably exchange vocoder frames, I'm sure it would have been 
>  > considered instead of inventing something new.
>  > 
>  > >   The EVRC/SMV
>  > >  format work in AVT has been going on for a long time, 
> and therefore one
>  > >  can question whether it is correct (from a procedural 
> point of view) to
>  > >  suddenly not use what has been developed in this WG, 
> but use something
>  > >  defined elsewhere. IETF standardization is usually an 
> engineering
>  > >  process, not rubber-stamping of already deployed 
> technical solutions.
>  > 
>  > When I learned of the qcp format, my suggestion for how to proceed 
>  > was to register a new mime type (audio/qcp) so as to not risk 
>  > delaying the evrc draft.  (As one of the authors of that draft, I 
>  > have no desire to delay it at all.)  This is what the current qcp 
>  > draft says.  However, I was told to do the technically 
> correct thing 
>  > instead.
>  > 
>  > >  Note that I am not aware of all the details in this 
> matter, but what
>  > >  has been communicated on the list does not provide 
> enough material for
>  > >  motivating what has been proposed. "We have already 
> deployed this
>  > >  alternative format while you were trying to agree on a 
> standard, and
>  > >  now we think you should use our format instead since it is more
>  > >  widely deployed" is a rather strange way of arguing in standards
>  > >  development, I think.
>  > 
>  > The QCP format was in deployment when we started working on the 
>  > evrc/smv draft, but neither I not the other authors were aware of 
>  > this.  It's not the case that the qcp format was deployed 
> afterwards 
>  > or in parallel, in an attempt to circumvent process.
>  > 
>  > The question now is how best to proceed.  As I said, my initial 
>  > suggestion was to take the easy path of not deleting the 
> file format 
>  > from the evrc/smv draft, and instead to use a kludge of 
> registering a 
>  > new mime type for the qcp file format.
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt