Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02

Hi Christian:
I can understand your frustration, and to some extent I share it.  However,
the purpose of a WGLC is to bring up issues that the editors have missed or
not acted upon.  So let's bring them up.

All:
The tracker is supposed to be one organized form of keeping issues alive and
make sure that they have been addressed adequately.  The tracker can be
found at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/report.  I believe that
most requirements-related issues have been entered into the tracker in some
form, although, in order to see whether an issue has been addressed
according to the WG consensus or to get a full picture of all issues, one
would have to review the mailing list as well.  But the tracker is a good
starting point.

Thanks,
Stephan

From:  Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
Organization:  Universitat Tubingen
Date:  Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:10:35 +0100
To:  'Stephen Botzko' <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
Cc:  <codec@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02

Christian - perhaps you could post a list of the issues you see that haven't
been addressed?

[Christian Hoene] No Stephen, these issues have been written down in
previous emails, drafts and issues in the Trac. They can be read by anybody
anytime. Thus, I do not see any benefit of repeating them again if the
editors continue to ignore any input. Indeed, they did not improve the draft
despite sound technical reasons.
Even if somebody is not fully involved in the technical details: It is very
odd that despite many hundreds emails and many discussions since starting
this WG the editors have not updated the draft beside minor changes such as
the boilerplate and typos.
Even if the lack of any update was not intentionally, the editors missed to
do their job because they were too lazy or rather too busy doing other
thinks.
I would be sad if all the fruitful discussions here and all the good
contributions of many industry experts should have been in vain. Even if not
all requirements can be met by Opus, a proper requirements document may be
relevant for future solutions or other SDOs.
CH
_______________________________________________ codec mailing list
codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec