Subject: RE: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:38:29AM +0100 Quoting Ingemar Johansson S (ingemar.s.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > > > 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"!!
Attachment:
pgpvWBBznThGC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf