Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Anisse Taleb <> Tue, 19 April 2011 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC24E0734 for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.377
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v31+vqrNqQ6F for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB82BE071D for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (lhrga02-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:50:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <> for; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:50:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:50:27 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::f93f:958b:5b06:4f36]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:50:16 +0100
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:50:16 +0000
From: Anisse Taleb <>
In-reply-to: <>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: Jean-Marc Valin <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Thread-topic: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
Thread-index: AQHL/a5cJQgDHmbkU0q3uka00W6W65Rjz3aAgACF4FA=
References: <> <> <> <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:50:39 -0000

Dear JM

> On 11-04-18 05:52 AM, Anisse Taleb wrote:
>  > I cannot agree more. Freeze a version of Opus, and let's check the
>  > quality of the codec. If it passes the quality expectations, it will
>  > become a standard.
> As far as the tests we're discussing are concerned, the Opus bit-stream has
> been frozen for about two months now.

I was referring to the codec as a whole and not only the bitstream. It only needs a statement from Opus proponents that the code is frozen. Whatever you are happy with. If people start testing the codec, which involves resources and costs to respective organizations, I am sure they will not be happy to know that the code has changed after that or while they are testing.

On the bit-stream freeze, I hear elsewhere that the intention is to publish this as fast as possible and then potentially change the bit stream in another *more mature* version. I may have misinterpreted that. 

>  > -- But before that, clean up the code and the specification and fix the
>  > IPR issues. Right now the codec does not pass the "admin" part of
>  > requirements.
> I don't see how making the code/specification cleaner will affect testing,
> so I think this can be done in parallel. 
> We can't hold off for every
> conceivable possibility, but at this point we don't expect that Opus will
> require any quality-impacting changes.

Personally, I do not want to test an intermediate version of Opus, or to find out that the code I tested had a bug because when cleaning up we find that certain variables or whatever was not initialized.

It is quite frustrating to hear that testing is holding off publication. Let's even assume that the part of testing is done and out of the way. What about the spec and the code ? I see there are still known bugs and I am still not happy with the state of the code or the written draft. 

Several individuals will agree to publish this codec and do not seem to care about what it contains or the state of the code. I for one would like to be able to understand the code and the written draft text. Ultimately I would like to be able to implement Opus based solely on the written description alone. This is for instance the case for MPEG audio codecs, they are implementable from the written spec. Can we at least try to achieve that with Opus?

Kind regards,