IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD87E0877 for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zOK7uqBPQvBU for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90FCE0865 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=498; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302828868; x=1304038468; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=M9SdLauUoGFKN27zwf84HvAlB8wS0s8csx/6TfZlx/w=; b=C4WcfMXZwpsLhF+57ZpuykeOPEVSAPpvjlWpZUHqIoASFAqjBy/7m99i f5Ru3oJEEYe7LPNL2LjVmV3/rxnzxqOxw4InV0L0Jw7TgiJ20HXSJk6TI EDoLYWHoho07P7YvFltOAbt0LqxwnkT7nZ9373I6rETU3mKH7al9oPO7k A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACOWp02rRDoI/2dsb2JhbAClf3eIb547nQ6FbgSFWogVg3M
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,214,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="681769359"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2011 00:54:28 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3F0sEwi016196; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:54:27 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9CB2798.2A7EB%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:54:27 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6701DDCA-62E6-4257-8F32-AE127FE2DFDC@cisco.com>
References: <C9CB2798.2A7EB%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
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: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:54:29 -0000

On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

>  At this point we are as sure as we will ever be that
> opus v5 is encumbered by potentially royalty bearing IPR. 

I somewhat doubt the above statement but regardless, the topic of if given patents apply to opus or not is not something this WG can take on. I'd be very happy if people that want to go discuss the opus code and specific patents took that discussion off to the other email list that Christian set up.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email