IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC

Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net> Wed, 05 October 2011 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <giles@thaumas.net>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7786511E8115; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Q7PHpZqatdG; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C6B11E80C2; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so2192185vcb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.74.40 with SMTP id q8mr3012878vdv.254.1317851072926; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.200.195 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [184.71.166.126]
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiHo7Dz7ybcHcqy5NMhTZUPVT_i5=B3rG8Hf4jW52E8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20111005161247.1554.47741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMm+LwiHo7Dz7ybcHcqy5NMhTZUPVT_i5=B3rG8Hf4jW52E8LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:44:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEW_RkuTjNrgGxvfVorCJwyRE1VT==KQoOung4Ceavs6hTEwww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt> (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:41:25 -0000

On 5 October 2011 13:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio
> codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once
> we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired.

I'm not familiar with AC2, but if you mean traditional audio codecs
like MP3, AC3, and Vorbis, these all have a high encoding (and
decoding) latency which makes them unsuitable for interactive
applications.

Addressing that, as much as the (almost 4-fold!) bandwidth reduction
over legacy codecs, is what we're trying achieve with this working
group. This is reflected in the requirements document published as RFC
6366 where low coding latency is a primary attribute of each use case.

That doesn't have much to do with your comments on the other IPR
issues, but I hope it explains why we can't just use mp3.

Separately, mp3 is in fact still covered by patents, at least
according to wikipedia[2], so that is not an IPR free solution for
some years yet, even if it were technically suitable.

 -r

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6366
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email