Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx-01.txt

On 09/24/2013 07:06 PM, John Lindsay wrote:
>
> Hi Harald
>
> Thanks for reviewing this and the points raised.
>
> To increase clarity we can change the statement in section 3
>
> From
>
> Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X are proprietary audio coding
>
> algorithms, licensed by CSR plc and widely deployed in a variety of
>
>    audio processing equipment.
>
> To
>
> Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X are proprietary audio coding
>
> algorithms, which can be licensed from CSR plc and are widely
>
>   deployed in a variety of audio processing equipment.
>

That looks good to me. It was a nit, but worth fixing!
>
> Section 3 of the doc provides an overview of the codecs operation. The 
> aim of the draft is how to packetize Standard or Enhanced apt-X over 
> RTP not to explain the operation of the codec. Further details are 
> likely to be proprietary to CSR and interested parties would need to 
> talk to CSR directly about obtaining licenses and setting up NDA's etc 
> for further information.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> *From:*payload-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:payload-bounces@ietf.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Harald Alvestrand
> *Sent:* 17 September 2013 13:53
> *To:* payload@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [payload] I-D Action: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx-01.txt
>
> Brief scan, one question:
>
> Is it possible to offer a stable reference for what "Standard apt-x" 
> and "Enhanced apt-x" means?
>
> The closest I can get is "licensed by CSR plc", which presumably means 
> that "it means what CSR plc thinks it means", but it would be great to 
> have that stated explicitly.
>
> Something like:
>
> The codecs "apt-x" and "Extended apt-x" are defined by CSR plc, an UK 
> company.
>
> Section 3 of the draft *almost* says that, but isn't completely 
> unambiguous ("licensed by" can mean both "CSR is a licensor" and "CSR 
> is a licensee, someone else defines it").
>
> I *think* this is a nit.
>
>
> On 09/10/2013 03:50 PM, John Lindsay wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     A new draft has been uploaded to the IETF Payload workgroup at
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/payload/.
>
>     The new document makes a few minor changes for IDNITS checking and
>     also takes account of the comments made by Peter Stevens last week.
>
>     A summary of the changes are as follows.
>
>     Page 1, IETF Copyright notice updated to 2013.
>
>     Page 10, updated formatting for IDNITS check.
>
>     Page 14, Section 6 updated to reflect RFC 6838 which supersedes
>     RFC 4288.
>
>     Page 16, Section 6.2.1 type corrected An -- A as per Peter Stevens
>     comments.
>
>     Page 18, Section 7 now reference 6.1 rather than 7.1, again thanks
>     to Peters proof reading.
>
>     Page 21, new RFC6338 referenced.
>
>     Thanks to everyone who has read and commented on the draft.
>
>     Regards
>
>     John
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     payload mailing list
>
>     payload@ietf.org  <mailto:payload@ietf.org>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/payload
>