Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

I would strike
> - somebody will claim IPR on the resulting work
from the list of risks. The *resulting* work would clearly be  
predicated by both prior art and Note Well.

On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> I view this as a trade-off. If we pursue this, there are risks:
>
> - nothing may come of it since there are no experts willing to help
> - somebody will claim IPR on the resulting work
> - the quality of the codec may not be competitive
>
> However, if we don't do this, we are stuck with the status quo,  
> which is not all that satisfactory. Thus, unless there are  
> significant costs for "innocent bystanders", I see this as a risk  
> worth taking. In the worst case, we are no worse off than we are  
> today. In all other cases, we'll have an additional choice for a  
> wideband codec, even if it's not "the best", just "good enough".  
> After all, most people use G.711 today, which has a really hard time  
> making that claim.
>
> Most real work in the IETF is done by very small teams, typically  
> less than 10, so as long as we have a handful of people that are  
> willing to contribute, this can work. It might even work better,  
> since you may get fewer people who have half-baked opinions - we may  
> skip the binary vs. XML debates...
>
> We can set some ground rules ("must be tested with packet loss of  
> 5%") and then see what happens. Compared to most network protocols,  
> the likely negative impacts (such as security or congestion control  
> issues) of even a badly-designed codec are pretty limited.
>
> Henning

> [snip]