[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)

dmex dmex04 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 22:51:20 UTC 2011


What's the point of including it on the document when it's not finalized and
has potential patent claims?

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 2:44 AM
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)

On Thu Jun 16 18:26:34 2011, dmex wrote:
> Opus should not be listed until such time as its patent doubts are 
> resolved 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
> XEP-0266
> (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 on 
> 2011-07-08.
> 
> 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 requirements?
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, 
> why not?
> 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
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade




More information about the Standards mailing list