Subject: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:44:17 -0500

[as chair]

Based on the discussions at the face-to-face meeting in Dallas, I have 
attached a revised charter proposal for the proposed working group. The 
changes between the version presented during the BOF and this one are 
detailed in the attached HTML file.

Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple 
affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, 
would be helpful.

Thanks!

/a

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:41:22 -0700

> affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form,

One point from Jean-Marc: do we want to have a separate deliverable for 
the reference implementation? In CODEC this was part of the main 
specification, since it was normative, but since we have agreed to make 
the English text normative for NETVC, it could potentially live in a 
separate document.

Other than that question, I think the document looks good in its current 
form.

---

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 04:08:59 +0000

It¹s unclear if ³evaluation criteria² in the first deliverable matches the
first or last milestone.

Deliverables
1. A set of technical requirements and evaluation criteria. The WG may
choose
to pursue publication of these in an RFC if it deems that to be beneficial.

...
Goals and Milestones
TBD  Requirements to IESG, if the WG so chooses (Informational)
TBD  Submit codec specification to IESG (Standards Track)
TBD  Submit storage format specification to IESG (Standards Track)
TBD  Testing document to IESG (Informational)

My interpretation of ³evaluation criteria² is to document the methodology
of iterative testing during codec development to guide the design
decisions. This must come very early, probably just after requirements. I
suggest to add a separate milestone for it just after requirements, or add
it in the first milestone along with requirements.

My interpretation of the final milestone is testing the completed codec to
verify the goals were met, since it comes last. I¹m not sure how useful or
necessary this is. It likely came from the opus/codec wg charter, which is
also revisiting the need for this (still outstanding) milestone. I suggest
to remove it until its purpose and need is clear.

Mo

On 4/1/15, 2:44 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
[as chair]

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 09:56:44 -0500

On 4/2/15 23:08, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> It's unclear if "evaluation criteria" in the first deliverable matches the
> first or last milestone.

I was reading it as being part of the first deliverable (as the 
deliverables and milestones for the charter otherwise match each other 
in order, number, and content). I propose clarifying by changing the 
first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..."

That said, I wouldn't get too hung up on the "Milestones" section. We 
can change that pretty easily after the group is chartered, if we 
discover reason to do so; and, in most cases, they aim to brief rather 
than self-explanatory (leaving completeness to the body of the charter). 
When looking at what the working group is allowed/expected to work on, 
it's really the "Deliverables" section that you should focus on.

> verify the goals were met, since it comes last. I'm not sure how useful or

The actual deliverable is described thus: "A collection of test results, 
either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly 
available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This 
document shall be informational."

In that context, do you still believe that this document should not be 
part of what the WG intends to work on? My personal, non-chair position 
is that a characterization document would be useful and relevant to the 
WG's goals (which include demonstrating that the codec is 
"competitive"); and I believe that we have people willing to work on it. 
Since it's the last thing slated to be delivered, it doesn't hold up 
other work, and those parties who don't care about its contents don't 
need to wait for its publication.

/a

---

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:53:26 +0000

> Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..."

Works for me. 

Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest). 

Mo

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:17:43 -0700

> Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest).

Both sound fine to me.

Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? 
Here's some proposed text:

"3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an 
encoder and a decoder."

---

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:57:49 +0000

Timothy B. Terriberry <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? Here's some proposed text:
> "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a decoder."

Seems reasonable to me. 

Mo

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:09 -0700

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can
>> revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this
>> (currently no supply or demand interest).
>>
>
> Both sound fine to me.
>
>   +1 for adding source code ref-impl.

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

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:35:17 -0500

Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most 
importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to 
satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new 
deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment.

/a

On 4/3/15 17:01, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>             Adam Roach <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>             I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be
>             "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..."
>
>
>         Works for me.
>
>         Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for
>         now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see
>         how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest).
>
>
>     Both sound fine to me.
>
>     Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference
>     implementation? Here's some proposed text:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:22 -0700

Hi all,

A couple of nits that should help when this goes out for community review:

OLD
where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are RF
NEW
where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis

OLD
an open source reference version of the codec will be developed in parallel with the working group
NEW
an open source reference version of the codec will be developed in parallel with the working group’s work

OLD
3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a decoder.
NEW
3. Source code for a reference implementation (documented in an informational document) that includes both an encoder and a decoder.

Unless folks object to these changes, I’ll put this into the datatracker and get it moving through the approval process.

Alissa

On Apr 6, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment.
> 
> /a
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <[email-masked]> wrote:
> <netvc-charter-02.txt><netvc-charter-diffs-01-02.html>_______________________________________________
> video-codec mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: Paul Coverdale <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:12:07 -0400

Although it's perhaps implicit, it may be worthwhile to explicitly state in item 1. of the core technical considerations that not only should high compression efficiency be competitive with existing popular video codecs, but the resulting video quality should also be competitive. In other words, the goal is to maximize both.

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: video-codec [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Adam Roach
>Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:44 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: Richard Barnes; [email-masked]
>Subject: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised
>
>[as chair]
>