Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

SM <> Tue, 01 May 2012 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635A421F864A; Tue, 1 May 2012 00:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmHL2nu+M0jl; Tue, 1 May 2012 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4C221F8657; Tue, 1 May 2012 00:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q417CgZO001861; Tue, 1 May 2012 00:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1335856372;; bh=s9CU/SD9U/YQBdSyTK95nyGgOOCt6uC17RO9blwnWJo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Bl6m9xNlkYSL3o5MJrkE7/3OsNMdqC9ns08U44tonC5bZJZCm+bKKE5uhmAt6+9Ci NgbSK8DOL+rt+BUR05MC6/J09ksAuGiHoAmiV44P0CqpOPJJ4546UtsOkapPHLCXIB nh1tnCgQKdB9lO56dtND/eyj8N3stJ/Rt87uK/s4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1335856372;; bh=s9CU/SD9U/YQBdSyTK95nyGgOOCt6uC17RO9blwnWJo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=riH8DR4+BDzwvcuSsamLZZnzQ/AWq1vpZXit5qqaACGMG5eqPKkulxcGhrktLQ3Sh U4DWLSaJCyyGke8L9Dl8WwyxvGzH1aZZoxZA4eYxMSq5G7szVMXG7z4Gb/b79aaxHg gk8Gbag13d5yEl8jjdflMB47FYjVaXddXISzdxqU=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:28:59 -0700
To: Stephan Wenger <>, Ron <>,
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:46:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
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: Tue, 01 May 2012 07:13:03 -0000

At 15:53 30-04-2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>This subject was also raised by our AD on the codec mailing list.  The
>statement is about spec text copyright (with the possible exception of the
>word "use", which is loaded in this context, see BSD license and implicit
>patent grant ambiguity).  Insofar, the patent licensing statement received
>appear to be irrelevant to this discussion.


At 18:40 30-04-2012, Ron wrote:
>If this clause becomes a blocker, then we should simply remove it, but in that
>case it would be good to have clear reasons why it became a blocker, since the
>things you say you fear here, I see as already being prohibited anyway.

The text in Section 10 is ambiguous.

Given all the efforts that went into RFC 6569, it's odd to see the 
text being discussed during the Last Call instead of the WGLC.