IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ingemar Johansson S" <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 January 2010 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 15A3A3A6870; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 3nH5bkez03iX; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923E23A6A65; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7c57ae000002bb1-4f-4b584f84fdcd
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.B3.11185.48F485B4; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:58:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.2]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:58:43 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:58:42 +0100
Message-ID: <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C0295A258@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <20100121121352.GD1250@besserwisser.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Thread-Index: AcqakzXlswTkwuqDQVaLOTV0pdJnCgABQu4A
References: <20091223171501.7BAE33A697D@core3.amsl.com> <14093.1261593597@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <14853.1261600779@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <2401.1261648036@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <4b3373d7.02135e0a.241a.fffffb62@mx.google.com> <a123a5d60912241926l6f2255e3kc15d1d21573adeb9@mail.gmail.com> <B67FB114-FDA9-4431-A2E2-6ACF344B2EA7@cisco.com> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959C6B@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <20100121000303.GA1250@besserwisser.org> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959FE1@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <20100121121352.GD1250@besserwisser.org>
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2010 12:58:43.0783 (UTC) FILETIME=[763C7D70:01CA9A99]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: codec@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@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
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:58:52 -0000

> -----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.


> 
> > 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"!!
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email