Speex dev - Mar 2009 - ietf discussion about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> Hi Aymeric,
>
> Yes, I'm receiving the emails but haven't had enough time to look
into
> the details yet. I've seen you responded to many comments, so what are
> the ones for which we still need to respond?
Summary is there:
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2837/

As I understand:
  we need to change "mode" definition to be ONLY a list of comma
separated
  values. This is because order of several modes has no importance
  according to another rfc about SDP...

We need a few adjustment:
* cng and vbr should be optionnal to folow.
* ptime rouding text is not well understood
* it should be specified that the code is only defined for mono.
* ..

Also, we need to know why there is a "license" chapter (chapter 9)
and we need to remove it because ietf don't like it...

Probably a little more...

Aymeric
> 	Jean-Marc
>
> Aymeric Moizard a ?crit :
>> Hi Jean-Marc, Alfred and Greg,
>>
>> Are you receiving the mails from IETF about draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex
>>
>> The mails are not coming from AVT mailing list, but I think we are
>> all 3 part of a minimal list (draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex at
tools.ietf.org)
>> dedicated to latest discussion about the draft.
>>
>> I have answered some questions, but there are small changes and
adaptation
>> still required to the ietf draft...
>>
>> tks,
>> Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
>> amsip - http://www.antisip.com
>> osip2 - http://www.osip.org
>> eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speex-dev mailing list
>> Speex-dev at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
>>
>>
>

> Also, we need to know why there is a "license" chapter (chapter
9)
> and we need to remove it because ietf don't like it...
IIRC, the reason for the license is to make the document compatible with
the Debian licensing guidelines or something like that.

	Jean-Marc

On 3/2/09, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca>
wrote:
>> Also, we need to know why there is a "license" chapter
(chapter 9)
>> and we need to remove it because ietf don't like it...
>
> IIRC, the reason for the license is to make the document compatible with
> the Debian licensing guidelines or something like that.
I was the one who suggested adding that part as I had it on the Ogg
media types draft I was writing at the time.  My draft has been
published as an RFC with said licensing section with no one from the
IETF raising an objection; I don't see why it would happen here.

-Ivo

Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>> Also, we need to know why there is a "license" chapter
(chapter 9)
>> and we need to remove it because ietf don't like it...
> 
> IIRC, the reason for the license is to make the document compatible with
> the Debian licensing guidelines or something like that.
> 
I would like to know if we should keep this additional license chapter
or not ..? Please advice, if you have any input..

if we keep the extra chapter, it will delay the IETF process.


/alfred
> 	Jean-Marc