I don't think it is a very good idea to attempt this type of work in
the IETF. We have enough difficulty doing crypto algorithms and that
is an area where we have tens of people with decades worth of
expertise who pretty much mostly agree on the algorithms to use in any
case.
An unencumbered CODEC would be very useful, but any new CODEC that was
developed would be subject to attack by patent trolls. So the group
would be pretty much limited to reviewing existing technologies and
attempting to select one that is out of patent.
Looking at technologies that are out-of-patent or soon to be out of
patent, well DVD came out in 1995 and the patent licensing terms are
reasonably well defined. MP3 and AC3 are the existing industry
standards. If we know when the patents drop dead, I can't see how IETF
imprimatur is going to add or detract anything there. Its not as if
the IETF can stand behind the spec and say that it is definitively
unencumbered. So the most we are going to have is a document that
brings together all the relevant information and allows people to
quickly come to a degree of confidence that the technology will be
inencumbered on a certain date.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Roni Even
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
In line
Roni Even
-----Original Message-----
From: kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU
[mailto:kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:47 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:30 +0200
From: "Roni Even" <ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<4b33100a(_dot_)01135e0a(_dot_)2ab9(_dot_)ffff8e9b(_at_)mx(_dot_)google(_dot_)com>
| I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
| requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and all
proposed
| codecs should provide the results and then the WG will choose the
best codec
| bases without discussing the codec itself. This is what I would
call a
| selection process (at least in ITU terms).
The WG can decide how it wants to go about the process, I'd just prefer
that
the charter not (effectively) rule out selection of something that
already
exists with an assumption that something entirely new will be created.
| The problem is that the IETF process allows anyone to contribute to
existing
| work hopefully leading to a better the end result.
Of course, but also be aware that there's no one definition of
"better".
Something that can be defined quickly and used immediately might be
much
better than something it takes 5 years to create and more to implement,
even if the invented one saves a little bandwidth or has better loss
recovery characteristics.
This is the IETF process for better or worse, I asked similar questions and
the response is that the IETF decide what is better is based on rough
consensus.
BTW: my personal view is that your suggestion is in line with the process at
the ITU when doing codec selection, but there are people who prefer doing it
at the IETF using the IETF procedures for other reasons.
| What about the change control, does it stay with the original
contributor or
| can the IETF modify the codec based on input from other parties,
which means
| that the codec may change by the IETF anyhow.
The IETF will have change control over its protocol, of course, which
may
cause it to diverge from that upon which it was originally based. And
yes,
everything changes with time.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf