[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)
dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 16 18:43:30 UTC 2011
On Thu Jun 16 18:26:34 2011, dmex wrote:
> Opus should not be listed until such time as its patent doubts are
> and its format has been formally finalized, doing otherwise is
> stupidity at
> its best.
No, I disagree, we should clearly indicate that there are IPR claims,
and take no position on their validity.
Then we provide the best information we have as an organization, and
this may result in people becoming more aware of patent issues, and
either quashing them or ignoring Opus as a result; either is fine.
> Can anyone actually support its inclusion in the RFC at this time?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of XMPP Extensions Editor
> Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 12:25 AM
> To: standards at xmpp.org
> Subject: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> (Codecs for Jingle Audio).
> Abstract: This document describes implementation considerations
> related to
> audio codecs for use in Jingle RTP sessions.
> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0266.html
> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business
> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
> send your
> feedback to the standards at xmpp.org discussion list:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or
> to clarify an existing protocol?
> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
> introduction and
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If
> not, why
> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
> Your feedback is appreciated!
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards