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: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of XMPP Extensions Editor
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 12:25 AM
To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
