RTP Payload Format for Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X Codecs
draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx-05

[Ballot comment]

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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]

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?

[Ballot discuss]
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?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

Upon approval, IANA will register the following media type at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types:

audio/aptx  [RFC-to-be]

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X Codecs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for Standard apt-X and Enhanced apt-X Codecs'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a scheme for packetizing Standard apt-X, or
  Enhanced apt-X, encoded audio data into Real-time Transport Protocol
  (RTP) packets.  The document describes a payload format that permits
  transmission of multiple related audio channels in a single RTP
  payload, and a means of establishing Standard apt-X and Enhanced
  apt-X connections through the Session Description Protocol (SDP).




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-aptx/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.