Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Mon, 29 March 2010 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 C33A03A6A8F for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.29
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 zsddfLIX+l72 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81AD3A6A76 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (unverified [24.5.132.232]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 628273-1743317 for multiple; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:21:47 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:21:34 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Message-ID: <C7D6138E.208D0%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
Thread-Index: AcrPU4QpsoWCFhvVs0uXVvE6feBpxA==
In-Reply-To: <4BB0C132.6030606@acm.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 24.5.132.232
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (24.5.132.232) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
Cc: Codec WG <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <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: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:23:03 -0000

Hi Marc,

On 3.29.2010 08:03 , "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@acm.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> So double indirection would be OK, but not simple indirection.
> 

It's certainly preferable to me.  Even more preferable is not talking about
patented technology at all, but I know that I'm in a minority position here.

>> 
>> As for the documentation of motivations for historic reasons: motivations
>> for design choices get lost in standardization all the time.
>> 
> 
> And it is probably the reason why it takes so much time to someone even
> motivated to implement this specs right.
> 

I believe that a spec should be implementable with or without motivational
information for design choices.  There are many SDOs which create "lean"
specs, without any motivation, and related implementations interoperate just
fine (MPEG comes to mind).  IETF RFCs contain a rather large amount of
explanatory language, comparatively speaking.  I'm not sure that all the
explanation necessarily helps in call cases.  But that's a discussion for
another day.

Stephan