Thanks. The updated draft looks good.
Colin
On 14 Dec 2009, at 20:55, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
Sounds like a good suggestion. We will make the text change after
the LC ends.
Thanks.
-acbegen
-Original Message-
From: fecframe-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:fecframe-boun...@ietf.org]
Hi Ben,
I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement
to
be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if it
is
strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumber
As I've said before, there is a high cost to service providers every time
a new codec is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of
full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed
lightly.
The world already has enough encumbered codecs, and there's no point in
addin
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement to
> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if it is
> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to eit
Andy:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not
explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies;
such decisions will be
Quoting Stephen Casner :
> In the past, particularly when I was co-chair of AVT, there was
> significant pressure from IETF leadership against IETF (and AVT in
> particular) standarizing codecs out of concern that to do so would
> step on ITU toes. We made a carefully considered exception for iLBC
Before the IESG sent the proposed CODEC charter out for community review, we
received some concerns about this proposed charter. I had hoped these would be
discussed during the WG charter review. I'm raising these issues now to make
sure that the IESG has an opportunity to hear from the whole
Russ,
Yes, that's better, thanks.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Andy:
>
> Does the following text strike a better balance?
>
> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>
On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Andy:
>
>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not
>>> explicitly rule out the possibility of
Hi,
Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are
encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are equally
problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples:
1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder company
on one's products ac
> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre writes:
Peter> On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Andy:
>>
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group
shall attempt to adhere to the spirit
Let me suggest to substitute "Making it easy to redistribute" with "Making
it easy to redistribute and use".
Shareware and Trialware are often freely redistributable, but not
necessarily free to use in a monetary sense. The mechanisms that make
Trial/Shareware not freely usable are often partly o
Total of 86 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 8 00:53:02 EST 2010
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.63% | 10 | 10.10% |55876 | jab...@hopcount.ca
10.47% |9 | 7.78% |43039 | jo...@iecc.com
Subject: Re: WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) Date: Tue, Jan
05, 2010 at 11:16:10AM +0100 Quoting Arnt Gulbrandsen
(a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no):
> Mans Nilsson writes:
>> But we are not running out of proposals for codecs to adapt. Both CELT
>> and SILK seem reasonable.
>
> Speaki
14 matches
Mail list logo
