IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Fri, 08 January 2010 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
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 B97D128C0F8; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:59:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 cIy-CnuUcBgc; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:59:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38EF28C0EA; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1NT54L-0005Xi-Cn; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:59:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:59:20 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5DB622BA892E3C45C1EC8185@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <4B460FF9.5020303@vigilsec.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:46 -0800
Cc: codec@ietf.org, 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: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:59:26 -0000

--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:46 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

>...
> 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.

Yes.  Considerable improvement, IMO.  Out of deference to
often-stated other concerns, "require royalities" should be
something like "require royalties or explicit per-implementation
or per-user licensing", but I think that is in the spirit of
where you are going.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email