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

[Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>]

>> 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

'Failed' is not quite the right word word.  It is more that [to date]
they have shown little interest and as such have not tried.  However
if they did try, I expect the attempt would indeed fail.

[Actually, I believe there has always been strong minority interest
within MPEG for unencumbered baselines, but the process and
institutions there are such that it hasn't and probably couldn't
happen.  Thus, as an organization, I assert MPEG 'has not attempted'
such a thing even if some members within have advocated for it
strongly or tried to set an unencumbered process in motion.]

> 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.

Quite incorrect.  The IETF consists of its participants, and several
IETF participants have produced widely distributed good quality
wideband and full-band codecs suitable for the Internet.  The IETF has
not _blessed_ or _standardized_ any of these to date.  But it has
produced several [passively].

> 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.

That would only happen in the case that one of those codecs were
produced in a closed or encumbered process.  The open codec would and
should appropriate any good idea available to it.  We are listening
(and searching with prying, beady eyes).  I do not, however, want to
enshrine the necessity to wait, indefinitely, on outside interests
whose own goals may be at odds with or at least indifferent to our
own.

Let me be frank: I want the ITU, MPEG and others involved, but I
expect the need for prodding and cajoling to make collaboration work.
Our interests at this moment seem poorly aligned on at least one key
point, as such, I object to the charter granting outside SDOs a 'go
slower' button.  I am not suggesting acting in bad faith or trying to
cut anyone out.

Monty