RTP Payload Format for Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X Codecs
RFC 7310

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Sean Turner) Discuss

Discuss (2013-12-18 for -04)
I hate to be that guy but I gotta ask .... 

Normally when we're defining a company specific thing we put the name of that company in the title to make it clear it's their "thing".  Here the authors don't work for that company - how's this supposed to work?  And, shouldn't this be in the vnd space?

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-05-09)
No email
send info
I had a discuss that said:

"I don't understand how section 3 does not have
an accompanying IPR declaration. Nor do I get
how this helps interoperability if the codec
details themselves are not openly specified.
And the section ends with an advertisement.
Did the WG discuss those issues?"

The WG had discussed it so I'm clearing, 
but it'd be better if in future the IPR stuff
was made more clear IMO so I hope the 
WG consider that if/when they process 
other similar codecs. I just mean getting an
IPR declaration so the IETF LC has more
clarity on what's going on, and note that I
am not saying that this is required by our
process, (I'm not sure) but it'd still be overall 

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-18 for -04)
No email
send info
I take it on the basis that there is no IPR disclosure that there is no IPR contained in section 3.

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2013-12-19 for -04)
No email
send info
I share my colleagues' uncertainty with some of what's in this document.  It disturbs me to see text such as this in a Standards Track document (from the first paragraph of Section 3):

   Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X are proprietary audio coding
   algorithms, which can be licensed from CSR plc. and are widely 
   deployed in a variety of audio processing equipment.  
   For commercial reasons, the detailed internal operations of these 
   algorithms are not described in standards or reference documents.

And at the end of Section 3, the address to whom we can write, presumably to buy software that does apt-X....

That said, the rest of the document does appear to provide a technical specification that the working group wants to publish.  I'm going to let my colleagues' DISCUSS positions cover things, and ballot No Objection.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection