Hi Elwyn,
We're submitted a -14 draft to address your comments. Again, see the
response to each of these issues in the attached document.
Thanks again,
Jean-Marc
On 12-05-16 05:26 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi, Jean-Marc.
... and thanks for the super-quick response! You have been
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for the very thorough review. We've addressed your issues and
submitted draft version -13. See our response to each of the issues you
raised (aggregated from all the authors) in the attached document.
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
On 12-05-14 09:13 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I am
Hi,
Actually, maybe we can look at how other SDOs are handling this issue.
Considering that ITU-T, 3GPP/3GPP2 and (to a lesser extent) MPEG all
standardise codecs in the same space, how do these SDOs coordinate? For
example, does the ITU-T SG16 have some text in it's charter that says we
will
Hi,
stephane.pro...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
The Charter states first the The goal of this working group is to
develop a single high-quality audio codec considering (on what basis
?) that there are no standardized, high-quality audio codecs that meet
all of the following three conditions
Hi Adrian,
During the last BoF in Hiroshima, there was a very useful presentation by
Yusuke Hiwasaki (SG16-Q10 Associate Rapporteur) about how the ITU-T works
(slides at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/76/slides/codec-2.pdf). From
what I understand, there are two main reasons why the ITU-T
process
is in characterization/testing, there's a lot we can accomplish before reaching
that stage.
Jean-Marc
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jean-Marc Valin
jean-marc.va...@octasic.com wrote:
Hi Adrian,
During the last BoF in Hiroshima, there was a very useful
Hi,
Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a good
idea to just say that the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with a
20-year lag. As it has been already shown with the codec proposals received to
date, it should be possible to create RF codecs that are
Hi,
I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly
agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I
understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the charter,
but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea IMO.
this argument occasionally
:-)
Stephan
On 1/11/10 7:32 AM, Jean-Marc Valin jean-marc.va...@usherbrooke.ca
wrote:
Hi,
Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a
good
idea to just say that the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with
a
20-year lag
cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to
avoid encumbered technologies that would hinder free
redistribution in any way.
Russ
On 1/7/2010 3:13 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure royalties are the *least
Quoting Stephen Casner cas...@acm.org:
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
Brian West wrote:
I think CELT and SILK are both great codecs.. I was under the impression
that SILK ran at 32kHz and did internal resampling but that doesn't
appear to be the case. Either way we have six sample rates to pick from
between the two codecs giving you bandwidth vs quality options
12 matches
Mail list logo
