IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Thu, 21 January 2010 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.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 654E13A6862; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:30:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 rdS9BHt8IjFQ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC9A3A6918; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so3147568fxm.14 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:29:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/4JifRdzo3DoyKV2ARD8tBK1MVCAaB0iMiCZqNundcw=; b=pLNosPIoPZ313C/qCVHmHwthEffDAWQOgUMcvnCMgtD2d55Uq8DPZdL5IqHQ4tVRkN THHpEecE5HMtOmC3FzhyUtV3NmR0LEh7x0W5r0i6Bh8tbhHEyeg9W/G1T8V3fWKyfJpv gkKspeafDylBJOOLiax8IbGNfFl7tPcUyOxz0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=HhysuCbVX6dDc8aSeVvFuODK99m/YJH8NMkbam5Yw2ciZdrk2yqdv/eWJxx8AT/kS3 /y3DNgUZRM9EIon+xfOS4aGbo03yuQ01iECEEx345NFw67f1mJ+o+X73Wvdy/ylbZTUg VRWvqu4RA69tlYCB+woSuSrdZ7VXgnwp1wrto=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.87.34 with SMTP id p34mr722740mul.18.1264076987248; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:29:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20100121121352.GD1250@besserwisser.org>
References: <20091223171501.7BAE33A697D@core3.amsl.com> <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>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <6e9223711001210429x1406a9a4w980d6d62c1995434@mail.gmail.com>
From: stephen botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e65bcefacb3273047dabdb7a"
Cc: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>, 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 12:30:00 -0000

Once again we are getting tied up in the IPR debate...

One reason to check existing codecs against the CODEC requirements is that
too many overlapping codecs in the marketplace works against
interoperability.

A second reason is that developing a new codec is a lot of work, so it makes
sense to make sure of its value first.

I'd also observe that if (for arguments sake) we did find such a codec in
another SDO, the IETF would not rubber-stamp it.  So I am not seeing the
connection to the rubber-stamping question.

Stephen Botzko
Polycom

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>wrote:

> 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?
>
> > 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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email