RTP Payload Format for Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X Codecs
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
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 better.
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Comment (2013-12-18 for -04)
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)
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.