Re: [codec] AD review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-11

Robert Sparks <> Thu, 26 April 2012 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9B021F87A0 for <>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AyHuW2rZCzeu for <>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D524B21F879E for <>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unexplicable.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3QJw77u062130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:58:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:58:07 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron <>
References: <> <20120419130128.GE12062@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20120419130128.GE12062@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [codec] AD review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-11
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: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:58:14 -0000

Note that I've requested IETF LC for version -12 (which includes this 

I'd like to continue this conversation.

All the examples below are from before the current TLP (4) was in place.

As you note the TLP does not restrict the authors from making the grants 
you describe.
Why is it important to include this statement as part of _this_ document?

If you are able to do what you need without the section (which is what I 
think you're saying
below), removing it removes any _chance_ of confusion.

If you are not able to do what you want without the section, we need to 
talk about the TLP.
(If that's the case, could you call out the constraint that is in your way?)


On 4/19/12 8:01 AM, Ron wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> I'll add my warm thanks for the obvious effort and attention that you've
> put into reviewing this draft too.  This is a non-trivial contribution
> that I'm very happy to see.
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 03:14:23PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> 1) Section 10 (Copying considerations) appears to be trying to say
>> something different from what the copyright notice on the first page
>> says. Do we still need this section? Can it be removed at this time?
> The intention of this section was to make explicit that the authors are
> granting additional rights to those of the TLP.  Similar to the grants
> that were added in, for example:
> The main difference here was a desire to be clear that the source code
> components were not included in this additional grant and remained under
> the usual IETF BSD licence for such parts.
> While the TLP is fairly clear that the IETF avoids becoming involved in
> making such additional grants and it is up to the document authors to
> do so if they wish, there is no desire for this clause to add confusion;
> so if there is better language that we should use there which fits with
> the intent, then I'd welcome suggestions for how it might be improved.
> I requested that this be added so that we could include this text in the
> supporting documentation of the Debian packages for libopus, which we
> would not be able to do without this additional grant of rights.
> Best,
> Ron