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

Subject: RE: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date: Thu, Jan 
21, 2010 at 10:38:29AM +0100 Quoting Ingemar Johansson S 
(ingemar(_dot_)s(_dot_)johansson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com):

> > > So our interpretation of such proposed phased approach is 
> > that the WG 
> > > would be explicitely taking a decision to pursue the work 
> > if there are 
> > > no standardized codecs out there fullfilling the requirements.
> > My interpretation of the situation is that this milestone is 
> > in most peoples rear-view mirror. The available codecs that 
> > could be rubberstamped are all missing some of the desirable 
> > qualities, ie internetability, licensing, sound quality, latency.
> I would say that it is up to other SDOs to determine that once the
> requirements are set. 
Why? 

> The big problem is that technical and legal
> matters are aired in the same sentence and I beleive that even a Codec
> WG in IETF will in the end realize that the legal matters are the most
> complicated. But enough said about this.
 
I do not disagree about legal issues being large blips on the problem
radar. The failure to grasp the business potential in free  (fsvo free
that meets BSD or GPL standards, just to grab some examples) codec
technology among those who have traditionally produced codecs is one of
the cornerstones in why CODEC is needed and why I think IETF should
keep a loose liasion to other SDOen rather than lockstepping.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I HAVE to buy a new "DODGE MISER" and two dozen JORDACHE JEANS because
my viewscreen is "USER-FRIENDLY"!!

pgpVAvhKjoZcd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf