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

Florian Zeitz florian.zeitz at gmx.de
Fri Jun 17 09:24:36 UTC 2011

Am 17.06.2011 04:44, schrieb dmex:
> Q: What is the most annoying behavior on email discussion lists?
> A: People who don't contribute to the discussion like the Executive Director? ;) 
You did of course read his not top-posted contribution to the
discussion, right?

> Am I emailing play school? One of these things is not like the others, one of these things does not belong.
I doubt being condescending will get you anywhere...

> A codec that has patent issues and not finalized is something that does not belong. End of story.
> Do I really need to list reasons why this having this codec listed on this document is a bad idea?
That would be a good start since apparently at least one person on this
list disagrees with your assessment.

And just to have "contributed" something to the discussion:
I personally don't care if Opus is in the XEP if it is in the current
form (clearly stating the situation on IPR issues), but I think it's
somewhat strange to include information on something that is still very
much in flux.

Florian Zeitz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im]
> Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 9:21 AM
> To: XMPP Standards
> Cc: dmex
> Subject: Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio)
> First of all, Section of XEP-0266 is purely informational -- it lists selected codecs that might meet the criteria set out in Section 2. I'd agree that it would be premature to make Opus RECOMMENDED, but this spec doesn't do that, so I don't understand your objection.
> Peter

More information about the Standards mailing list