IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2011 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <xiphmont@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 064C63A67C3 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Ucus7oe4uAtp for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFFD3A67CC for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2495599wwa.13 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dGGTcULl7LBZJrfzZrgHOIAXvQmJp9C4TP9nrGtCfJs=; b=vffO+2+fvOodg7pb39VJVfZ3IbDzEt+gg/aT8KBzCujD8oIVZdF/vIOXJbL4ygYDLn kruBR1RwzCss/0x3b9aIebVOtk/t2cWLHYEf8stIP0UKYd/igKJDkY2BDEyZYqqXPPWp g11WrjGgVcbjH/STYz+0py1FJ8RHvu4qRnnTY=
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=Mh1W9hc5yb1MmP2VUpEjALUEienj0nbL61aprLgw5FWJKfoY8xia0ZtoB6ymWBblyx Xb09hiP4K4mFAbJQtPxuZ9PlFZd3Z4LfspATMfe7NqnYnTCJdNkqZjCswHSvkHrajsbE JlKg/wiH2+7QSFQVdNjpOp5udPZ2L4ZoqgxCc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.208.202 with SMTP id gd10mr1481973wbb.23.1302211223189; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.152.130 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9C36AEA.2A080%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <BANLkTikvx65MP96w=akZy+Mnz=cJ2P_2iw@mail.gmail.com> <C9C36AEA.2A080%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:20:23 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimo9V5W7a2C2ngTtqBEz42Lko6_rQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:18:46 -0000

> but let's assume it anyway in a thought experiment: let's
> test only codecs with comparable licensing schemes.
[...]
> So try your design around, hope that Qualcomm is amicable to submit an
> updated disclosure against your (hopefully clean) solution, and only then
> propose to test only against RF technologies.  Before that, compete fairly.

This argument is based upon and presupposes WG failure.  If we do not
presuppose
failure, the argument is specious at best.

It also assumes prima facie applicability of the Qualcomm IPR
submission.  Please
don't assume my current lack of comment grants you this point.

Monty
Xiph.Org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email