IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] non-standard codecs

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0219B21F8741 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nP-gVhqAuycQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7E321F873C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU401-EAS256 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:57:49 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [130.129.68.169]
X-EIP: [K0NqQSwyWtbyDpfcLZkbgCnCWnty5HUB]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU401-EAS256F60C698A939735A4597593C60@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:57:46 -0700
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2012 13:57:49.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E168370:01CD6E5B]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] non-standard codecs
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:57:52 -0000

There are several reasons why it would be imprudent to seriously consider a non-standard codec as mandatory-to-implement:

A. Change control. Normatively referencing a document not under IETF change control as mandatory-to-implement means that a core aspect of the standard would be subject to change without IETF review.

B. FRAND status. SDO IPR policies (and legal precedents) confer important benefits to documents that have gone through a standards process. Without this, potential IPR claims have no upper bound.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email