Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Stephan Wenger <> Wed, 13 April 2011 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9DCE081C for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.731
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.868, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlNFG0JBjlXZ for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A966E0690 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 9022-1743317 for multiple; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:19:56 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:19:41 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>, Erik Norvell <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:20:00 -0000

On 4.13.2011 09:45 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <> wrote:

>On 4/13/11 8:48 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:


>> I also think the encumbrance of the codec is unclear at this point
>> and I don't think rushing to finalize the standard would serve the
>> purpose of this WG. Due to the encumbrance there may still be changes
>> required which may affect the quality, and the final testing should
>> begin after this has been resolved.
>We knew when we started this process that there might be encumbrances.
>We even knew that there might be unreported encumbrances that would
>emerge only after the codec was published as an RFC, or only after the
>code was in use by companies who would be big targets for patent
>lawsuits. I see no reason to delay publication until all possible
>encumbrances have been resolved, whatever that means (as we all know,
>patent claims are not resolved at the IETF, they are resolved in courts
>of law).

Yes.  However, what can (and probably should) be done is to make sure that
at least those encumbrances that are known (by the way of the disclosure
of the rightholders) are adequately addressed.  In the WG meeting, I have
suggested a few mechanisms which may help in this regard.

It is my understanding that requirements are usually taken in a logical
AND relationship.  At this point we are as sure as we will ever be that
opus v5 is encumbered by potentially royalty bearing IPR.  What does that
say about the relevance of the tests performed against opus v5?


>Peter Saint-Andre
>codec mailing list