On 5 October 2011 13:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio
> codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once
> we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired.

I'm not familiar with AC2, but if you mean traditional audio codecs
like MP3, AC3, and Vorbis, these all have a high encoding (and
decoding) latency which makes them unsuitable for interactive
applications.

Addressing that, as much as the (almost 4-fold!) bandwidth reduction
over legacy codecs, is what we're trying achieve with this working
group. This is reflected in the requirements document published as RFC
6366 where low coding latency is a primary attribute of each use case.

That doesn't have much to do with your comments on the other IPR
issues, but I hope it explains why we can't just use mp3.

Separately, mp3 is in fact still covered by patents, at least
according to wikipedia[2], so that is not an IPR free solution for
some years yet, even if it were technically suitable.

 -r

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6366
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to