Re: [codec] Codec proposal: draft-valin-celt-codec-00.txt

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean-Marc,
Re point 2, the license to be used (once the I-D were to become an RFC) can
be found here: http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf.
It's a BSD-style license, like yours, but the attribution is different.
That's what I meant, and I'm sorry for having been unclear.
Regards,
Stephan
P.s.: AFAIK, there is no formal requirement to have the correct license and
attribution in an I-D, so there is nothing wrong with it for now.



On 7/5/09 5:17 AM, "Jean-Marc Valin" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Stephan Wenger a écrit :
>> Three things that will hopefully be seen as constructive :-):
>> First, posting reference code in text format, while quite common in speech
>> standards, is not that overly helpful IMHO, especially considering the
>> number of lines of code.  At least during the I-D phase, a reference to an
>> URL where one can retrieve a stable version of the code, plus a promise to
>> copy-paste that code into a final RFC if that were the consensus, seems to
>> suffice.
> 
> I agree that the 72-column text format isn't great for source code (took
> me a while just to make it fit!). Right now, the source code in the RFC
> actually differs from the downloadable code in that it has been
> simplified to only support floating point (the main reference code can
> switch from float to fixed-point through macros). In any case if the
> consensus is to leave it out during drafting, that's what I'll do.
> 
>> Second, if you add code into your I-D, it would IMHO make sense if you would
>> start using the required license---a BSD derivate.  While I personally
>> appreciate your very broad license, it is not directly compatible with the
>> BSD license we require for code sections of RFCs.
> 
> Not sure what you mean here. The license on the files I appended *is*
> the BSD license.
> 
>> Third, it would be helpful if you would explicitly state what part of your
>> I-D actually is the normative specification: source code, or textual
>> description.  I note that in most ITU and 3GPP speech codec standards, the
>> code is actually setting the normative standard, and the textual description
>> is informative.  If I recall correctly, in the IETF's LBC effort the same
>> holds (I didn't check this---too lazy).  To me, using source code as the
>> normative standard makes sense---for speech coding only.  If that's what is
>> intended here, please make sure that it is prominently advertised.
> 
> Actually, I couldn't find such a statement in iLBC (though I may have
> missed it). Unless there's a good reason not to do that that I'm unaware
> of, I agree that it's safer to make the C code normative.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jean-Marc
> 
> 
>> On 7/4/09 9:13 PM, "Jean-Marc Valin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> Here's a first codec proposal:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-valin-celt-codec-00.txt
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jean-Marc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>