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

In line as well :
The first stage of the work has not been done yet : the detailed technical requirements have not been defined and agreed yet,
the second stage of the work with other SDOs to analyse if already exiting codecs meet these requirements is not done
and yet the Charter on the basis of which this WG could be launched is formulated as if the conclusion resulting from this 2 stages was known and obvious : no existing codec is suitable and so a new codec is needed

so, again : only these first 2 steps (requirement definition and standard analysis) are, at this stage, relevant to start a WG since the next steps depend on the conclusion of this work.

for instance , there could be some middle way between developping a new codec and reusing an existing standard : it could be much more efficient to simply extend/adapt an existing standard and, to achieve this, it would be better to rely on the SDO that have standardized this codec. 

Stéphane Proust

________________________________

De : codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de stephen botzko
Envoyé : jeudi 21 janvier 2010 14:10
À : Ingemar Johansson S
Cc : Mans Nilsson; codec@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

in-line

Stephen Botzko
Polycom

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:mansaxel@besserwisser.org]

	> Sent: den 21 januari 2010 13:14
	> To: Ingemar Johansson S
	> Cc: codec@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org

	> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
	>
	> Subject: RE: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
	> Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:38:29AM +0100 Quoting Ingemar
	> Johansson S (ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com):
	>
	> > > > So our interpretation of such proposed phased approach is
	> > > that the WG
	> > > > would be explicitely taking a decision to pursue the work
	> > > if there are
	> > > > no standardized codecs out there fullfilling the requirements.
	> > >
	> > > My interpretation of the situation is that this milestone
	> is in most
	> > > peoples rear-view mirror. The available codecs that could be
	> > > rubberstamped are all missing some of the desirable qualities, ie
	> > > internetability, licensing, sound quality, latency.
	>
	> > I would say that it is up to other SDOs to determine that once the
	> > requirements are set.
	>
	> Why?

	What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only then will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet them.

I agree.  Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell exactly how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the detailed requirements are locked down.

Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this assessment.  Other SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond with their own work programs.  But in the end it would be up the IETF to decide if there is too much overlap.

	>
	> > The big problem is that technical and legal matters are
	> aired in the
	> > same sentence and I beleive that even a Codec WG in IETF
	> will in the
	> > end realize that the legal matters are the most complicated. But
	> > enough said about this.
	>
	> I do not disagree about legal issues being large blips on the
	> problem radar. The failure to grasp the business potential in
	> free  (fsvo free that meets BSD or GPL standards, just to
	> grab some examples) codec technology among those who have
	> traditionally produced codecs is one of the cornerstones in
	> why CODEC is needed and why I think IETF should keep a loose
	> liasion to other SDOen rather than lockstepping.
	>
	> --
	> Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
	> MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
	> I HAVE to buy a new "DODGE MISER" and two dozen JORDACHE
	> JEANS because my viewscreen is "USER-FRIENDLY"!!
	>

	_______________________________________________
	codec mailing list
	codec@ietf.org
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************