Subject: [codec] Suggested replacement language for guidelines draft

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:10:59 -0700

This is my proposed replacement language for section 2 subsection 2 of the
05 guidelines draft:

Original:

Interested parties will actively solicit the contribution of
existing or proposed new codecs to the Internet Standards
Process.  Ideally these contributions will occur in the form of
Internet-Drafts to enable the widest community review, although
any contributions made in accordance with BCP 78 and BCP 79 will
be acceptable (e.g., via mailing list or a presentation during a
working group session).  If there is any IPR related to a
contributed codec, the contribution should be accompanied by an
appropriate IPR disclosure as specified in BCP79 (IPR issues are
described in more detail under Section 5).

Replacement

Interested parties are encouraged to make contributions proposing existing
or new codecs, or elements thereof, to the codec WG as long as these
contributions are within the scope of the WG.  Ideally, these contributions
should be in the form of Internet Drafts, although other forms of
contributions are also possible as discussed in [PROCESS] and in the IETF¹s
Note Well.  As always, contributions to the IETF are subject, among other
process oriented RFCs, to [PROCESS], [TRUST], and [IPR].  Considering the
field of technology, IPR transparency may be particularly high on the
priority list of many codec WG participants.  Accordingly, contributors are
specifically reminded of their IPR disclosure requirement, and all
participants are reminded of the solicitation of the disclosure of third
party IPR, both as codified in [IPR].