Re: [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft
<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 07 November 2011 19:41 UTC
Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 7846C21F8C4F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:41:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 8imjElK6LZP9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFACD21F8C26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:41:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pA7JfkM4006151; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:41:48 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.26]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:41:42 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by 008-AM1MMR1-010.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.2; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:41:41 +0100
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.190]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:41:28 +0100
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: xiphmont@gmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft
Thread-Index: AQHMnX/fvYR5fKnZ8UGEbAKzMP4xyZWhx9Xg
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:41:28 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620FBA49@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <CACrD=+8UycohXgwCvBZkJ8MLY+mBQ3Kz-jj4hq4xY-xq3FaXaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACrD=+8UycohXgwCvBZkJ8MLY+mBQ3Kz-jj4hq4xY-xq3FaXaw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [88.114.26.217]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2011 19:41:42.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[4661D690:01CC9D85]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft
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, 07 Nov 2011 19:41:51 -0000
Hi, Monty Montgomery wrote: > >Qualcomm has filed nearly identical IPR claims in several IETF working groups >working under RF terms. Are you suggesting that WebRTC must avoid SIP[3] >or drop SDP because of similar Qualcomm IPR filings[4] that differ only in the >patent numbers? > Hmm... It's indeed interesting why there is such a fuss about royalty free codecs, but not so much on the other parts of the WebRTC framework. At least codecs are easily changeable, unlike some of the other components. (Not that I have done any research on how many known patent claims there are against the other components.) Markus
- Re: [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft Markus.Isomaki
- [rtcweb] Opus RF status, was: Re: Codec Draft Monty Montgomery