Subject: Re: [codec] codec matrix

From: Michael Knappe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:47:51 -0800

Agreed, this should be limited to technical information, such as audio bandwidth, latencies (encode / decode), packet size(s), etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on a reasonable computational complexity benchmark or measurement methodology for comparison purposes?

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>; Codec WG <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tue Feb 23 16:42:51 2010
Subject: Re: [codec] codec matrix

I would recommend to limit the information to technical terms and/or to
received IETF IPR statements.  Posting your interpretation of commercial
terms (including license terms) could open you up to liabilities you don't
want to have.
Stephan

On 2.23.2010 16:40 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At the BoF in Stockholm, Jean-Marc Valin presented a basic matrix of
> information about a number of codecs that might be considered as input
> to the WG's efforts. Now that the WG has been formed, it might be useful
> to revisit that matrix. I propose that we create a wiki page about it here:
> 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/wiki/CodecMatrix
> 
> Any volunteers to help out with that? Jean-Marc, perhaps you could start
> by providing the information from your original slides?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Peter

_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec