Subject: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:29:08 -0600

The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the last IETF have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of which were a consequence of the previous working group last call for this document. Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion centered on requirements for codec comparison, and the document update on April 13 includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly evaluate consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of this draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any changes are needed before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please propose the new text you would like in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the reason you think the text should be changed. 

Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - that is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that.

Jonathan & Cullen <CODEC WG Chairs>

---

From: Paul Coverdale <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:49:27 -0400

Hi Cullen,

I don't recall the discussion on this point, but it seems that in section
5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no worse than" the reference
codecs, whereas in the previous version it was "better than". I suggest that
we revert to "better than", otherwise what have we achieved performance-wise
with the new codec?

Regards,

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>Of Cullen Jennings
>Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:29 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
>Subject: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
>
>
>The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the last IETF
>have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of which were a
>consequence of the previous working group last call for this document.
>Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion centered on
>requirements for codec comparison, and the document update on April 13
>includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly evaluate
>consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of this
>draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any changes are needed
>before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please propose the new text
>you would like in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the
>reason you think the text should be changed.
>
>Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - that
>is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that.
>
>_______________________________________________
>codec mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec