Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean-Marc,
I was happy to see your sentence " especially the fact that what we are
proposing here is to take *four* non-standard codecs and make one standard
codec out of them." 
I hope that the charter will be strict about that.

Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Jean-Marc Valin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:04 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; IAB IAB; IESG IESG
> Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> During the last BoF in Hiroshima, there was a very useful presentation
> by
> Yusuke Hiwasaki (SG16-Q10 Associate Rapporteur) about how the ITU-T
> works
> (slides at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/slides/codec-2.pdf).
> From
> what I understand, there are two main reasons why the ITU-T cannot take
> on
> this work by itself:
> 1) Membership isn't open like the IETF, but most importantly
> 2) IPR/licensing issues cannot be discussed during the development
> period
> 
> There were two proposed workarounds to these (see slide 15). First a
> focus
> group was proposed to allow non-ITU members to discuss. Unfortunately,
> that
> solution does not address the IPR issue, nor does it address the fact
> that
> ITU focus groups cannot create standards in the first place. So the
> only
> alternative that was left was to do a joint body with an IETF WG
> (similar
> to the JVT between MPEG and ITU that led to H.264). That means we need
> an
> IETF WG that can actually develop codecs to begin with.
> 
> In general, I think it's really time to get the work going and, as
> Monty
> put it, not get into meeting pre-meetings to discuss whether we will
> hold
> future meetings. At this point, there is significant interest, there
> are
> people willing to do the work and there are even four proposals on the
> table. Right now, the only concern that has been expressed over this
> work
> was about having one more codec that vendors would have to support. I
> don't
> think that's a very strong argument considering the existing number of
> codecs out there and especially the fact that what we are proposing
> here is
> to take *four* non-standard codecs and make one standard codec out of
> them.
> I can't see how that would be a bad thing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Jean-Marc
> 
> 
> 
> Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Stefan,
> >
> >> until now other SDOs have failed to produce a widely distributed
> good
> >> quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the
> >> Internet - especially one that is easily distributable - even though
> the
> >> necessary technology has been available for a long time. Further,
> nothing
> >> has substantially changed lately to make it likely that other SDOs
> are
> >> now
> >> suddenly willing to or capable of doing that.
> >>
> >> The proposal to make IETF CODEC development depend on other SDOs is
> thus
> >> not a constructive one and should not be followed.
> >
> > Your logic may be flawed.
> >
> > Until now the IETF has failed to produce a widely distributed good
> > quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the
> > Internet - especially one that is easily distributable - even though
> the
> > necessary technology has been available for a long time.
> >
> > But you don't suggest that as a reason not to do the work in the
> IETF.
> >
> > The proposed draft charter does not state that the IETF work should
> be
> > gated
> > on other SDOs nor that the IETF shall not develop a Codec. Rather, it
> > states
> > the value of sharing the requirements work developed in the IETF with
> other
> > SDOs, and it notes the benefits of listening to other SDOs if they
> point to
> > existing Codecs that meet or nearly meet the requirements.
> >
> > In the unlikely event that another SDO says "thanks for the
> requirements we
> > would like to develop a solution in our SDO" we will need to examine
> the
> > feasibility of their proposal and how people can best work on a
> solution.
> > There does not seem to be any benefit in developing two Codecs to
> meet the
> > same set of requirements.
> >
> > As to Xavier's point: I think he is right that the wording in the
> charter
> > could be usefully re-ordered so that the consultation is mentioned
> before
> > the determination to develop a new solution.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > codec mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec