Subject: [codec] consensus call: guidelines and requirements

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:31:38 -0700

Our charter [1] specifies that our first two deliverables shall be:

  1. A set of Codec Standardization Guidelines that define the work
  processes of the working group. This document shall be Informational.

  2. A set of technical Requirements. This document shall be
  Informational.

The submission deadline [2] for -00 drafts before IETF 77 is fast
approaching. Because it is desirable for these documents to be official
WG items before our session at IETF 77, as Chairs we hereby issue a
consensus call for:

1. Accepting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-02 [3] as the initial version
of the Codec Standardization Guidelines.

2. Accepting draft-valin-codec-requirements-02 [4] as the initial
version of the Technical Requirements.

We emphasize that these will be *initial* versions and that the existing
Internet-Drafts will be used as *starting points* for discussion and
consensus-building within the WG. (In fact, the Chairs have some list
feedback to incorporate before submitting these documents to the
Secretariat, so the versions referenced above are not *exactly* what
would be submitted, but they are close.)

We also emphasize that if accepted as WG items these documents will
initially be under the editorship of the Chairs (not the current
document authors) until the Chairs have an opportunity to select
official Document Editors for these Internet-Drafts as described in
Section 6.3 of RFC 2418. The Chairs envision that Document Editors can
be selected close in time to IETF 77.

Please provide your feedback to this consensus call by the end of the
day on Sunday, 2010-02-28, so that if accepted the Chairs can submit -00
versions of the relevant Internet-Drafts before the cut-off date
(Monday, 2010-03-01 at 17:00 PST).

Thank you.

Peter Saint-Andre & Michael Knappe
Co-chairs, Codec WG

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/charters
[2] http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF77
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-valin-codec-guidelines-02
[4]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-valin-codec-requirements-02

---

From: Jack Moffitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:10:10 -0700

> version of the Technical Requirements.

+1 to both of these from me.

jack.

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:16:27 -0500

Hi,

I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that I'm in favor of 
adopting these drafts as WG items :-)

	Jean-Marc

On 2010-02-24 19:10, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:05:19 -0500

Writing in a private capacity only.

I'm supportive of the the adoption of the requirements draft.

I'm not comfortable with the adoption of an substantially unchanged
draft-valid-codec-guidelines-02.  Perhaps it is better to allow for a few
weeks of development of this draft, and check for consensus in Anaheim.

There are two main reasons for my lack of comfort with this draft.  First, I
think it contains statements (especially in Section 5) that are plainly not
adequate for a WG draft--though they may well be appropriate for an
individual submission.  And, second, a WG draft should reflect the WG
consensus at a given time.  Looking at the BOF-time mailing list
discussions, I don't see many aspects of the draft that were undisputed.
That goes not only for section 5, but also for some of the procedural stuff
of sections 2, 3, and 4.

Section 5 of this draft (as well as a few words here and there) goes
considerably beyond the charter text and the IETF policy documents in
describing the desire for an unencumbered codec.

I believe that section 5 should be either removed or substantially reworded.
It clearly indicates the preferences of the individual draft authors towards
an unencumbered codec.  That's ok for an individual draft.  However, I have
difficulty to see that this is WG consensus.  It certainly was not BOF
consensus, by any consensus count I can imagine.  Further, on principle, I
don't like selective citations as employed here.  It may be adequate for an
individual draft to employ this type of suggestive tactics, as an individual
draft clearly represents the opinion (and the business interest!) of the
authors.  In a WG draft, that should not be the case.

We have some text in the charter related to this IPR stuff that has received
IESG blessing (not sure about community consensus, but never mind).  My
preference would be to stick very closely to the charter text, or leave the
IPR nonsense out completely.

I'm not absolutely certain that the procedural aspects of the draft
adequately reflect the outcome of the discussions surrounding issues such as
characterization (and need/lack of need for it), need for an implementation,
and so on.  The only area where I believe to recall consensus was to employ
a collaborative model of standardization, instead of a shootout.

I could go on and on, but I think I have written enough to justify my
current objection to adopt this draft.  Let's take our time with this one.

Stephan

P.s.: I have a couple of rather busy days coming up, but I will try to find
the time for more detailed comments, critizisms, and suggested changes.

---

From: Koen Vos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:40:24 -0800

I support accepting both drafts as WG items.

koen.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:41:55 +0200

Hi,

I support the adoption of the requirements draft as a starting point. I think that the first step afterwards is be to decide on the requirements for one codec according to the charter in order to enable the group to focus on the delivering the high quality audio codec as specified in the objective section of the charter.

As for the guideline draft. I suggest to first do some work to make it in line with the charter. I think that the major issues are with section 1 and 5 that were targeted to explain why to form a WG and express views that are not in the charter. I suggest to have a new revision before accepting it as a WG document.

Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Peter Saint-Andre
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:32 AM
> To: Codec WG
> Subject: [codec] consensus call: guidelines and requirements
> 
> We emphasize that these will be *initial* versions and that the
> existing Internet-Drafts will be used as *starting points* for
> discussion and consensus-building within the WG. (In fact, the Chairs
> have some list feedback to incorporate before submitting these
> documents to the Secretariat, so the versions referenced above are not
> *exactly* what would be submitted, but they are close.)
> 
> day on Sunday, 2010-02-28, so that if accepted the Chairs can submit -
> 00 versions of the relevant Internet-Drafts before the cut-off date

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:51:37 -0800

> adopting these drafts as WG items :-)

I'm shocked! Wait, that's just because I'm still half-asleep :-)

I too am in favor of these drafts being adopted.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: [email-masked]
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: Brian West <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:53:29 -0600

I'm in favor of them also. 

/b

On Feb 24, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that I'm in favor of adopting these drafts as WG items :-)
> 
> 	Jean-Marc

---

From: Gregory Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:01:44 -0800

> I'm in favor of them also.

I think this is a good idea.

(I also agree that the "Internet Interactive Audio Codec" or "Interactive Internet Audio Codec" are fine names)

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:38:47 +1030

> (I also agree that the "Internet Interactive Audio Codec" or "Interactive Internet Audio Codec" are fine names)

+1 on both drafts and naming

---

From: Finta Tartaruga <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:38:32 +0100

Just a minor point: section 5.6 of the requirement document
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-valin-codec-requirements-02) seems
to be a verbatim copy of section 5.4.

(BTW, sorry for the gmail address.  I have some problems with my "work" email)

---

From: Jonas Svedberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:03:03 +0100

Hi all,
  
With respect to the standardization guidelines I see that more work is needed to bring it inline with the spirit of the charter, before adopting as a WG draft document 
e.g. 
 *The charter is much clearer on the goal of having one standardized codec compared to the 
  the <draft-valin-codec-guidelines-02> where in sections 1 and 2  the guidelines target can still be
  seen as the standardization of several codecs.

 *Regarding the IPR section 5, (if this section is to be maintained in the process guidelines at all),  
  it needs be aligned with the charter and then further discussion is desired 
  especially around the listed subguidelines within section 5. 
     
 *Also in general the WG draft guidelines should be limited to the process description of the codec
  standardization work, and not include motivational/promotional parts. e.g. in section 1, section 5.   

The preferred way forward would be to develop the draft-guidelines a bit further 
and then check for consensus at  IETF 77.   

-- 

With respect to the requirements draft it is fine as a *starting point*, 
(I do see that the definition of the main application and the various design constraints/references for the various points in the "Operating Space" still need further input/discussion.  ) 

//BR Jonas Svedberg 

PS 
   As I am new to this list: 
   For those who do not know me I am working at Ericsson.
DS

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: den 23 februari 2010 23:32
To: Codec WG
Subject: [codec] consensus call: guidelines and requirements

The submission deadline [2] for -00 drafts before IETF 77 is fast approaching. Because it is desirable for these documents to be official WG items before our session at IETF 77, as Chairs we hereby issue a consensus call for:

1. Accepting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-02 [3] as the initial version of the Codec Standardization Guidelines.

2. Accepting draft-valin-codec-requirements-02 [4] as the initial version of the Technical Requirements.

We emphasize that these will be *initial* versions and that the existing Internet-Drafts will be used as *starting points* for discussion and consensus-building within the WG. (In fact, the Chairs have some list feedback to incorporate before submitting these documents to the Secretariat, so the versions referenced above are not *exactly* what would be submitted, but they are close.)

We also emphasize that if accepted as WG items these documents will initially be under the editorship of the Chairs (not the current document authors) until the Chairs have an opportunity to select official Document Editors for these Internet-Drafts as described in Section 6.3 of RFC 2418. The Chairs envision that Document Editors can be selected close in time to IETF 77.

Please provide your feedback to this consensus call by the end of the day on Sunday, 2010-02-28, so that if accepted the Chairs can submit -00 versions of the relevant Internet-Drafts before the cut-off date (Monday, 2010-03-01 at 17:00 PST).

Thank you.

---

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:20:52 -0800

> +1 to both of these from me.

++1.

This is not to say that I think either of these drafts are perfect and ready
for WG last call. On the contrary, as many others have pointed out on this
thread, there are still several contentious parts and tuning to be done,
especially to make the documents align more fully with the charter. But,
that said, these documents are (a) the clear and obvious efforts of focus of
the WG, with no contending documents, and (b) well along the right path
toward fulfilling the charter. For these reasons, I support adopting them as
WG documents, and continuing our efforts and tune and align them.

Hth,
Gregory.

-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz
Juniper Networks

---

From: Monty Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:27:55 -0500

Gregory just made the points I was trying to find the words for.  Not
perfect, but clear, concise and accurate thusfar.

I've held off on commenting only because wordsmithing is not my forte,
but these documents appear to say what I think they should say.

+1 to both.

Monty
Xiph.Org