Re: [codec] Discussion around ITU LS

Stephan Wenger <> Wed, 07 September 2011 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0363021F8B78 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id znTd7bCtP0G0 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4314521F8B76 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 34025-1743317 for multiple; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:09:34 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:09:17 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>, <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Discussion around ITU LS
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <>
Subject: Re: [codec] Discussion around ITU LS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:07:49 -0000

One comment inline.

On 9.6.2011 13:54 , "Cullen Jennings" <> wrote:

>Section 2.
>The goals of the WG are to develop a RF codec. We have several IPR
>filings reported. You can find them at
>t_tag=20667. Not all of them offer RF terms. The IETF does not want to be
>involved in deterring if the claimed IPR is valid or not - we simple
>report the claims we have. Many participants of the WG have looked at IPR
>disclosures and feel this codec meets the goals of the WG.

Others, including myself, disagree with those "many people" (most of which
are strong supporters of the Opus codec). So does obviously at least one
rightholder (or better: their legal).

>The question we need to ask in LC is do people think this is ready to

My reply to this is: the (from the outset unrealistic) goal of a codec
being freely practicable, whether achieved or not, should not interfere
with the publication of what seems to my uninformed mind to be solid
technology.  Adoption may or may not happen based on business situation,
business model, and risk tolerance of a possible adopter, as it is the
case for most (if not all) other standards.