Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sent: den 21 januari 2010 13:14
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: codec@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)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.
>
> 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?
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.
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf