IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cellar] purpose of FLAC RFC --- vs xiph.org

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Fri, 20 October 2023 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1072C15106E for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yluf1IZDDwrW for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailfish.xiph.org (mailfish.xiph.osuosl.org [140.211.166.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE12C14F748 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.0.18] (50-78-100-113-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.78.100.113]) by mailfish.xiph.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51D919F922 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:38:34 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: cellar@ietf.org
References: <27285.1697739741@localhost> <CADQbU69-YfQMkaAfrdvUTuoDVWAp_xLfK28zH7WxCM7naJCVZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
Message-ID: <18b14722-a36a-e027-6b73-d5d39af6e9bf@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:38:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.53.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADQbU69-YfQMkaAfrdvUTuoDVWAp_xLfK28zH7WxCM7naJCVZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/bBko0NIwtA3X19RL0xYlqkpR2ag>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] purpose of FLAC RFC --- vs xiph.org
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:38:38 -0000

Martijn van Beurden wrote:
> All in all, I don't think Xiph really claims any 'ownership'. Also,

For whatever it is worth, this is not the first Xiph format to be 
brought to the IETF. See, e.g., CELT, which formed part of the basis of 
Opus (RFC 6716), which is even now seeing further development... at the 
IETF [1].

I think the benefits of the reputation and the good name of the IETF are 
abundantly clear to the community. To my knowledge, Xiph never really 
wanted to be its own SDO.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mlcodec/about/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email