IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 01 May 2012 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A88521E82B0; Tue, 1 May 2012 09:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.673, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id StO+7LWroRep; Tue, 1 May 2012 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D90B21E8271; Tue, 1 May 2012 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7B81201CB; Tue, 1 May 2012 12:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id D4C5A4769; Tue, 1 May 2012 12:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120430120153.0947ed48@resistor.net> <CBC4E0F3.867E4%stewe@stewe.org> <20120501014037.GA18009@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 12:10:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20120501014037.GA18009@audi.shelbyville.oz> (ron@debian.org's message of "Tue, 1 May 2012 11:10:37 +0930")
Message-ID: <tsllilbvq3x.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>, "codec-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <codec-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 16:11:29 -0000

For what it's worth, I support authors' (and this is actually one of the
few times I mean that rather than editors) right to make such a grant. I
believe the community is significantly better served by having
additional grants in the RFC, and strongly support us permitting them. I
believe our current policy allows them; if the community consensus is
that is not the case I support changes to the policy up to an
appropriate BCP to permit this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email