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

Ron <ron@debian.org> Thu, 19 April 2012 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E8521F85D0 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiYIP5ehP97W for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D187521F85D3 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADYMkE920nFk/2dsb2JhbABDsUCBCIIJAQEFOhwjEAsOCi4UGA0kiCEMuluPWmMEiFqFLodmAYESjymCdw
Received: from ppp118-210-113-100.lns20.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([118.210.113.100]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 19 Apr 2012 22:31:33 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C80F4F8F3; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:32 +0930 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id q-lmSSZ7HbUf; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:28 +0930 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 312CE4F8FE; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:28 +0930 (CST)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:28 +0930
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <20120419130128.GE12062@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <4F8F209F.90505@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F8F209F.90505@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: codec@ietf.org, codec-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-codec-opus@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] AD review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-11
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:01:40 -0000

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:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3492#appendix-B
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4501#section-8
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5215#section-11
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5334#section-12

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