in-line
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ingemar Johansson S <
ingemar(_dot_)s(_dot_)johansson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Mans Nilsson [mailto:mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org]
Sent: den 21 januari 2010 13:14
To: Ingemar Johansson S
Cc: codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: 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?
What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only then
will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if
already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet them.
I agree. Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell exactly
how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the detailed
requirements are locked down.
Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this assessment. Other
SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond with their
own work programs. But in the end it would be up the IETF to decide if
there is too much overlap.
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"!!
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf