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

Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date: Mon, Jan 
04, 2010 at 05:57:56PM +0100 Quoting Patrik Fältström 
(paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com):
> We actually already have done work in this area, RFC 3951.
>
> What I think you say is that it in the IETF is hard to do work starting with 
> a white sheet of paper. And I agree with that. I do though think that is not 
> something special for IETF as an SDO, and I do specifically not think that is 
> specific for this kind of work.
        (I'm answering both Patrik and Philip here)

But we are not running out of proposals for codecs to adapt. Both CELT
and SILK seem reasonable.

The patent troll threat is a more sinister one, since a lot of revenue
and lock-in is won by FUDing  people into buying unfree codecs --
giving a lot of companies ample reason to fight this.

The users need CODEC. The industry maybe does not, at least not the
myopic parts of it. Do we build and document what the users need or
what the industry orders?

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Jesuit priests are DATING CAREER DIPLOMATS!!

pgp8SEpkKMot_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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