Re: [codec] possible issues to track

No, I just suggest to attempt being just a little bit diplomatic.
Stephan

On 3.25.2010 14:46 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com> wrote:

> Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> The comment was from me, and it was addressed towards the sensitivities of
>> cross-SDO relationships.  It is one thing if the ITU states that something
>> is better than ITU-Rec xxx, but it is another thing if another body states
>> this.  Certainly without having received appropriate input from the ITU
>> after requesting it through a liaison.
> 
> So do you suggest we drop the ITU codecs from the list? I don't really
> mind, considering that I would not expect that part of the requirement to
> be a limiting factor.
> 
> Jean-Marc
> 
>> Stephan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3.25.2010 14:32 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> - avoid phrasing subjective comparision in relation to ITU codecs
>>> I was actually surprised to see that one come up. As far as I know, most
>>> ITU terms of reference include comparisons like "better than G.722 at rate
>>> X". Does the ITU phrase this differently then we did?
>>> 
>>> As for the way of discussing the issues, it seems to me like the mailing
>>> list is just simpler. Most people so far have commented on the list anyway.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jean-Marc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> codec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>> 
>> 
> 