Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com> Sat, 09 January 2010 00:20 UTC
Return-Path: <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684413A685D; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:20:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1VAqXNUDSoZ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com (usaga01-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384893A67CF; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KVY00CIPE9S9E@usaga01-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KVY004FYE9QE0@usaga01-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:20:06 +0000
From: Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-id: <5F16477173FD48939F1DAD69CBD6A61B@your029b8cecfe>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <C76B79FC.1E959%stewe@stewe.org> <4B46404C.4030903@octasic.com> <4B47BC66.3090006@vigilsec.com>
Cc: codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
List-Id: "Should the IETF standardize wideband Internet codec\(s\)? " <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:20:20 -0000
"adapting" or "adopting"? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: <codec@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) > Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further: > > Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working > group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall > follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working > group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting > encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to > avoid encumbered technologies that would hinder free > redistribution in any way. > > Russ > > On 1/7/2010 3:13 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly >> agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I >> understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the >> charter, >> but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea >> IMO. >> In some sense, this is again part of the "making it easy to >> redistribute". >> >> Jean-Marc >> >> Stephan Wenger wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are >>> encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are >>> equally >>> problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples: >>> >>> 1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder >>> company >>> on one's products acknowledging using the protected technology. >>> 2. Unreasonable (from the viewpoint of the adopter) reciprocity >>> requirements: one of many examples would be "if you use this technology, >>> you >>> agree not to assert, against me or my customers, any of your patents. >>> Otherwise your license terminates.". >>> 3. Requirement for a "postcard license". Such a requirement may rule >>> out >>> open source implementations under certain open source licenses. >>> >>> I believe strongly that a charter that discusses IPR issues should >>> mention >>> at least those three aspects, and/or provide sufficiently vague language >>> to >>> allow for an appropriate reaction to those and other encumbrances that >>> may >>> show up. >>> >>> Royalties are the least of our problems. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stephan >>> >>> Disclaimer: I have clients that would have problems with all three >>> encumbrances mentioned above. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/7/10 11:08 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>>> Andy: >>>>> >>>>>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working >>>>>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall >>>>>>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not >>>>>>> explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered >>>>>>> technologies; >>>>>>> such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the working group. >>>>>> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the >>>>>> unencumbered >>>>>> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this >>>>>> statement to >>>>>> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if >>>>>> it is >>>>>> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, >>>>>> or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any. >>>>> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another >>>>> encumbered codec. I think these words are trying to say what you >>>>> want, >>>>> but they are also trying to be realistic. >>>>> >>>>> Does the following text strike a better balance? >>>>> >>>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working >>>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall >>>>> follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working >>>>> group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting >>>>> encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to >>>>> avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties. >>>> That seems reasonable. Although I was only the BoF co-chair, I'll >>>> volunteer to hold the pen on edits to the proposed charter. >>>> >>>> Peter >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> codec mailing list >>> codec@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec >> >> >
- [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec … IESG Secretary
- [codec] Fwd: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio C… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Robert Elz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard Shockey
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Dean Willis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Brian West
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sam Hartman
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… John C Klensin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Michael Ramalho (mramalho)
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Xavier Marjou
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stefan Sayer
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Alexander Chemeris
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] Conferencing and layering Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] Conferencing and layering Brian Rosen
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Russ Housley
- Re: [codec] [IAB] WG Review: Internet Wideband Au… Gregory M. Lebovitz
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Daniel Petrie
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Daniel Petrie
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Alexander Chemeris
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… John Kostogiannis
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Sjoerd Simons
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Thorvald Natvig
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Roni Even
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… jari.hagqvist
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Mans Nilsson
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephane.proust
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Ron
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Co… stephen botzko