Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

[Anisse Taleb <[e-mail]>]

Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:07 PM
> To: Stephen Botzko
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
> 
> On 4/13/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> > in-line
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 4/13/11 8:48 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:
> >     > Hi Ben, all
> >     >
> >     > If the codec is not ready for testing, then I cannot see how it
> could
> >     > be ready for standardization. To me the steps would be
> >     >
> >     > - freeze the codec when it is stable - test and evaluate - check if
> >     > requirements are met a) if yes standardize b) if not do not
> >     > standarize and rather go back and improve
> >     >
> >     > Informal testing should still be done during development to
> eliminate
> >     > the risk of b).
> >
> >     My understanding is that informal testing has already been done by
> quite
> >     a few participants in this WG.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and Erik is simply suggesting that should continue while the
> > codec development is underway.
> 
> Yep, testing is good. Let's keep doing it. :)
> 
> >     > I also think the encumbrance of the codec is unclear at this point
> >     > and I don't think rushing to finalize the standard would serve the
> >     > purpose of this WG. Due to the encumbrance there may still be
> changes
> >     > required which may affect the quality, and the final testing should
> >     > begin after this has been resolved.
> >
> >     We knew when we started this process that there might be
> encumbrances.
> >     We even knew that there might be unreported encumbrances that would
> >     emerge only after the codec was published as an RFC, or only after
> the
> >     code was in use by companies who would be big targets for patent
> >     lawsuits. I see no reason to delay publication until all possible
> >     encumbrances have been resolved, whatever that means (as we all know,
> >     patent claims are not resolved at the IETF, they are resolved in
> courts
> >     of law).
> >
> >
> > I think Erik was simply referring to the ongoing work already started
> > by the codec developers [whatever-it-is that is being done in response
> > to the Qualcomm declaration].
> > It sounds like you are suggesting this work should be halted, and we
> > should simply publish the current codec version???  It would be
> > interesting to know who else would agree with that proposal.
> 
> I am suggesting no such thing. What I'm saying is that we could delay
> publication *forever* if people want 100% assurance that Opus is patent-
> clear. Since we know (and have always known) that we can't gain such
> assurance, I'm suggesting that the WG needs to figure out how to proceed.
> 
> My opinion is that delaying forever would be bad.

There is a difference between suspecting patents and being 100% sure that there are royalty bearing patents on the codec (see QCM ipr declaration). If the latter holds, I do not see that the resulting codec is suitable to fulfill the requirements that this WG has set forth to accomplish and no reason to publish a codec with known encumbrances.

Kind regards,
/Anisse