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

We actually already have done work in this area, RFC 3951.

What I think you say is that it in the IETF is hard to do work starting with a white sheet of paper. And I agree with that. I do though think that is not something special for IETF as an SDO, and I do specifically not think that is specific for this kind of work.

   Patrik

On 25 dec 2009, at 04.26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> I don't think it is a very good idea to attempt this type of work in
> the IETF. We have enough difficulty doing crypto algorithms and that
> is an area where we have tens of people with decades worth of
> expertise who pretty much mostly agree on the algorithms to use in any
> case.
> 
> An unencumbered CODEC would be very useful, but any new CODEC that was
> developed would be subject to attack by patent trolls. So the group
> would be pretty much limited to reviewing existing technologies and
> attempting to select one that is out of patent.
> 
> Looking at technologies that are out-of-patent or soon to be out of
> patent, well DVD came out in 1995 and the patent licensing terms are
> reasonably well defined. MP3 and AC3 are the existing industry
> standards. If we know when the patents drop dead, I can't see how IETF
> imprimatur is going to add or detract anything there. Its not as if
> the IETF can stand behind the spec and say that it is definitively
> unencumbered. So the most we are going to have is a document that
> brings together all the relevant information and allows people to
> quickly come to a degree of confidence that the technology will be
> inencumbered on a certain date.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In line
>> Roni Even
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU [mailto:kre@munnari.OZ.AU]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:47 AM
>>> To: Roni Even
>>> Cc: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; iesg@ietf.org;
>>> ietf@ietf.org; codec@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
>>> 
>>>     Date:        Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:30 +0200
>>>     From:        "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
>>>     Message-ID:  <4b33100a.01135e0a.2ab9.ffff8e9b@mx.google.com>
>>> 
>>>   | I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
>>>   | requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and all
>>> proposed
>>>   | codecs should provide the results and then the WG will choose the
>>> best codec
>>>   | bases without discussing the codec itself. This is what I would
>>> call a
>>>   | selection process (at least in ITU terms).
>>> 
>>> The WG can decide how it wants to go about the process, I'd just prefer
>>> that
>>> the charter not (effectively) rule out selection of something that
>>> already
>>> exists with an assumption that something entirely new will be created.
>>> 
>>>   | The problem is that the IETF process allows anyone to contribute to
>>> existing
>>>   | work hopefully leading to a better the end result.
>>> 
>>> Of course, but also be aware that there's no one definition of
>>> "better".
>>> Something that can be defined quickly and used immediately might be
>>> much
>>> better than something it takes 5 years to create and more to implement,
>>> even if the invented one saves a little bandwidth or has better loss
>>> recovery characteristics.
>> 
>> This is the IETF process for better or worse, I asked similar questions and
>> the response is that the IETF decide what is better is based on rough
>> consensus.
>> BTW: my personal view is that your suggestion is in line with the process at
>> the ITU when doing codec selection, but there are people who prefer doing it
>> at the IETF using the IETF procedures for other reasons.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>   | What about the change control, does it stay with the original
>>> contributor or
>>>   | can the IETF modify the codec based on input from other parties,
>>> which means
>>>   | that the codec may change by the IETF anyhow.
>>> 
>>> The IETF will have change control over its protocol, of course, which
>>> may
>>> cause it to diverge from that upon which it was originally based.  And
>>> yes,
>>> everything changes with time.
>>> 
>>> kre
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
> http://quantumofstupid.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf