Re: [codec] Individuals and hats

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 14 April 2011 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D191E06DC for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFKlgIjRll+8 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27568E0664 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so1150663wwa.13 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=Br00ExaIXT1ToZXY7m3PGSWOZCfyxoK0OYjdlIQcdpc=; b=KUK6XMNHcYnV9mPGIvI8puYC63DfkIYufckaCgRJuff6FHX7aNVfRQyA3GaumiDCKc 0CT+aKRk52RZrU4CX6wEpKuvHxJknWpgoXCRggL29AEQPpnuEXP30EBitIhljJudAiZW V5uDWgGg8plEtZQAXXkqeLVWDOQ+WZCWVbu4o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; b=AIp9PHaItIJk0yydTWtcYx88zYAbTBxbDl/3971Ri/XvlUP5aHpuB5bT7gVCCQL58p XsnKkSMRK/6oX/jWWO/ORR3uzwJKQidf+JJtHfbZphrw0bBDP/2XD/rk2nuP8hx+VuUL V5JwCLpmfv1m/+WW59zJmCGdwTJvCfr0SSbhU=
Received: by with SMTP id l12mr507890wed.79.1302771875494; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from windows8d787f9 ([]) by with ESMTPS id g22sm680668wes.36.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <>
To: 'Thorvald Natvig' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:03:50 +0300
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acv6cHvFwPGKpHLpRQO/mjTVVjJN4wAEFmMA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [codec] Individuals and hats
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:04:37 -0000

I do not appreciate your comments since it accuses people of behaviors which
you cannot prove. I can say on the same path that there are people who do
not care about how it is done but they want a "good enough" codec that will
be royalty free developed by the IETF.

Personally I am not involved in MPEG work at all. I had past experience with
standardizing of G.719 which is a royalty free codec and I can also point
that Anisse was also part of this work.

Now for the codec work. My view is that if there is a claim that the codec
has better quality than other codec it need to be tested using well
established procedures that has been used to compare codec quality. There
was a request from the people who had experience with codec quality testing
to produce a proposal for test procedures and when they did they are
attacked for their motivation by some (I want to note that there are some
discussions about the proposal itself).

I do not mind if the WG will decide to remove the quality claim and continue
with developing  a royalty free codec with "good enough" quality not saying
it is better than other codecs. 

I just think that it should be clear from the charter and requirements what
is the purpose of the work. 

Roni Even
With individual hat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of Thorvald Natvig
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:37 AM
> To:
> Subject: [codec] Individuals and hats
> I see from cursory googling that there is an overlap between some of
> the
> proponents of the impossible test plan and developers of MPEG USAC,
> which seems likely to become one of the most patent encumbered codecs
> in
> history.
> There seems to be clear royalty-based gain to be had for individuals
> and
> companies if this workgroup should fail. Everyone in the IETF wears the
> hat of an individual, but it might be better to be upfront about the
> motivations for helping the workgroup succeed when there is such a
> clear
> conflict of interest.
> Sincerely,
> Thorvald
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list