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. Patrik On 25 dec 2009, at 04.26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > 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.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> In line >> Roni Even >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:47 AM >>> To: Roni Even >>> Cc: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; iesg@xxxxxxxx; >>> ietf@xxxxxxxx; codec@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) >>> >>> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:30 +0200 >>> From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Message-ID: <4b33100a.01135e0a.2ab9.ffff8e9b@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> | 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@xxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf