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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

While I see the burden and pain Russ mentions, I also want to note that
there is a distinct advantage of a joint project: the project would be bound
to the patent policies of both IETF and the other body (here: ITU).

In the specific case of the codec work, a joint project provides an
insurance policy for those companies that may be forced to pick up the
resulting standard, without really interested in taking the risk of using
something without having at least a solid RAND commitment in place.

If I were to summarize the IETF's patent policy in one sentence, it would be
"disclose or do not cotribute".  And the ITU's "if you are a member, it's
RAND".  To be bound by both policies means that the users of a forthcoming
standard could rely on the IETF's timely disclosure policy and working group
reaction for those companies that actively participate (through
individuals), and on a RAND commitment from those companies who don't (and
are ITU members, but the vast majority of the IP players in the codec field
are, IMHO).

Considering that you guys are determined to walk into a minefield, it may be
worth to buy this insurance.

Stephan


On 1/13/10 10:05 AM, "Russ Housley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
>>> I see absolutely no good reason not to start the work and do
>>> negotiations with other SDOs on the side.
>> 
>> That is thw way these joint bodies are usually formed (at least the
>> MPEG/ITU-T ones).  The group(s) form, and begin their
>> work.(independently)  In parallel the chairs and SDO management work out
>> the joint body organization.  It is easiest if the discussions on joint
>> body organization begin as soon as possible.
> 
> My experience is different.  When the IETF works with another SDO, the
> final steps in approval are extremely painful.  The IETF process does
> not meld well with others, and the result is that getting the exact same
> words published by both organizations is a near deadlock experience.  It
> has been done, but only because of heroic efforts by chairs and editors.
>   For this reason, I prefer a situation where one SDO runs their own
> process and the result is submitted to partners after the words are
> final.  Of course, collaboration during the development of the document
> is most welcome, but the process rules of one SDO are governing the
> development.
> 
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec