IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6 November 2009)

"Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> Wed, 11 November 2009 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
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 1619F28C20C for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:57:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, HELO_EQ_DE=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 YxM4u1MuKXVy for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx05.uni-tuebingen.de (mx05.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E3728C1F3 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:57:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoeneLenovoT60 (host-19-93.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.19.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx05.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id nAB0vTfH011048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:57:38 +0100
From: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
To: codec@ietf.org
References: <334A4109C6BEA14ABB48EBCF274A6C8A055399DF@MAILBOX1.blue.itu.ch> <A2B8EAD0-4EE9-4B07-A3CF-6133C1B14506@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A2B8EAD0-4EE9-4B07-A3CF-6133C1B14506@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:57:27 +0900
Message-ID: <000001ca6226$e9565930$bc030b90$@de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcpiUzEoHqKWV3KvRv2k7T2SuBXB1wAMBzgA
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus-Spam-Check: clean (checked by Avira MailGate: version: 3.0.0-4; spam filter version: 3.0.0/2.0; host: mx05)
X-AntiVirus: checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.0.0-4; AVE: 8.2.1.61; VDF: 7.1.6.216; host: mx05); id=20852-yWmEJG
Subject: Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6 November 2009)
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:57:20 -0000

Good morning,

> > please find attached a liaison statement sent from SG 16. 

Reading the liaison statement, I was thinking about how a potential
cooperation with Study Group 16 might look like. I do not have a firm
opinion yet, however, at least three possibilities. Compete with SG16 as in
the case of H.323 vs SIP, let the ITU-T do the work, or work together in
some way.

Considering this high risk endeavor and the lack of experiences at the IETF
in regard of codec standardization, the last might be preferable. But then
again, what are the risks of cooperation? Will it slow down an IETF
standardization process? Will the particular requirements of the Internet be
ignored? Are there increased chances that the standardization is going to be
hindered or sabotaged? Will the travelling budget be exceeded? 
And, how the cooperation - if any - shall look like? Any opinions on that?

With best regards,

 Christian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email