IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ingemar Johansson S" <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 January 2010 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.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 E5A953A6A2E; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:38:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 HKV23QddtsOn; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728633A6A2B; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7c57ae000002bb1-6c-4b5820995cd4
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B1.25.11185.990285B4; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:38:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.2]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:38:30 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:38:29 +0100
Message-ID: <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959FE1@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <20100121000303.GA1250@besserwisser.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Thread-Index: AcqaLRuEdQ198u+3RzCQcPWRcdJvTwAT4mMw
References: <4b33100a.01135e0a.2ab9.ffff8e9b@mx.google.com> <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C143@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <20091223171501.7BAE33A697D@core3.amsl.com> <14093.1261593597@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <14853.1261600779@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <2401.1261648036@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <4b3373d7.02135e0a.241a.fffffb62@mx.google.com> <a123a5d60912241926l6f2255e3kc15d1d21573adeb9@mail.gmail.com> <B67FB114-FDA9-4431-A2E2-6ACF344B2EA7@cisco.com> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959C6B@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <20100121000303.GA1250@besserwisser.org>
From: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
To: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2010 09:38:30.0662 (UTC) FILETIME=[7DDBB260:01CA9A7D]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: codec@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Should the IETF standardize wideband Internet codec\(s\)? " <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, 21 Jan 2010 09:38:40 -0000

Hi

See inline below

/Ingemar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:mansaxel@besserwisser.org] 
> Sent: den 21 januari 2010 01:03
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: codec@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
> 
> Subject: RE: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) 
> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:09:18PM +0100 Quoting Ingemar 
> Johansson S (ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com):
> 
> 
> > So our interpretation of such proposed phased approach is 
> that the WG 
> > would be explicitely taking a decision to pursue the work 
> if there are 
> > no standardized codecs out there fullfilling the requirements.
> 
> My interpretation of the situation is that this milestone is 
> in most peoples rear-view mirror. The available codecs that 
> could be rubberstamped are all missing some of the desirable 
> qualities, ie internetability, licensing, sound quality, latency.
I would say that it is up to other SDOs to determine that once the requirements are set. The big problem is that technical and legal matters are aired in the same sentence and I beleive that even a Codec WG in IETF will in the end realize that the legal matters are the most complicated. But enough said about this.


> 
> -- 
> Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
> MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
> I feel partially hydrogenated!
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email