IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 07 January 2010 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 EF4353A67AB; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:05:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.475, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 ydsTTdmwAK6v; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFEF3A67A8; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA4820144; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:05:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 73B6643F3; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:04:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4b33100a.01135e0a.2ab9.ffff8e9b@mx.google.com> <2401.1261648036@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <4b3373d7.02135e0a.241a.fffffb62@mx.google.com> <a123a5d60912241926l6f2255e3kc15d1d21573adeb9@mail.gmail.com> <B67FB114-FDA9-4431-A2E2-6ACF344B2EA7@cisco.com> <tslpr5p4hor.fsf@mit.edu> <024e01ca8da8$727e6a70$577b3f50$@us> <4b4380c6.0e1abc0a.5a80.ffffcd97@mx.google.com> <4B44119A.6020904@stpeter.im> <4B44154E.6070007@bogus.com> <8c99930d1001061459yacf631dtd8c3498faa1050d5@mail.gmail.com> <4B460FF9.5020303@vigilsec.com> <4B463120.1030504@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:04:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4B463120.1030504@stpeter.im> (Peter Saint-Andre's message of "Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:08:16 -0700")
Message-ID: <tslk4vthbiq.fsf@luminous.suchdamage.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: codec@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@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, 07 Jan 2010 21:05:03 -0000

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> writes:

    Peter> On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
    >> Andy:
    >> 
    >>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
    >>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group
    >>>> shall attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  This
    >>>> preference does not explicitly rule out the possibility of
    >>>> adapting encumbered technologies; such decisions will be made
    >>>> in accordance with the rough consensus of the working group.
    >>> 
    >>> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the
    >>> unencumbered status of any output of this group. However, I
    >>> would like this statement to be stronger, saying that this group
    >>> will only produce a new codec if it is strongly believed by WG
    >>> rough consensus to either be unencumbered, or freely licensed by
    >>> the IPR holder(s), if any.
    >> 
    >> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another
    >> encumbered codec.  I think these words are trying to say what you
    >> want, but they are also trying to be realistic.
    >> 
    >> Does the following text strike a better balance?
    >> 
    >> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working group
    >> will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
    >> follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  The working
    >> group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
    >> encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to
    >> avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties.

I agree with the concerns that Stephan expressed.  Royalties are only
one source of significant problems.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email