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

Jean-Marc Valin <> Mon, 24 January 2011 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E5B3A69B5 for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OeHSbTpBhWjQ for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D563A697B for <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:08:55 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 18:08:47 -0500
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAN+VPU3PPaAN/2dsb2JhbACkbHO7WIVQBIRwiVUG
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2011 18:08:39 -0500
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:08:39 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:08:38 -0500
From: Jean-Marc Valin <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Hoene <>
References: <> <000001cbbad6$4f44aea0$edce0be0$> <> <001001cbbc02$c6acf010$5406d030$>
In-Reply-To: <001001cbbc02$c6acf010$5406d030$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc:, 'Stephen Botzko' <>
Subject: Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:06:02 -0000


I actually responded to the last comments you made a while ago (oct 2010). 
One issue I pointed out was your use of RFC2119 keywords, which (AFAIK) 
aren't appropriate for a requirements draft (the requirements aren't a 
standard). So statements like "Any codec specified by the IETF MUST be well 
specified", besides stating the obvious, are inappropriate.

There were also comments that just did not belong to this draft, such as 
the section on collaboration with other WGs. Collaboration is not a 
characteristic of a codec. So essentially, I merged the uncontroversial 
suggestion, but that's all I could do. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing 
in the current draft that goes against the consensus of the WG. If there 
are, please point to specific issues and to statements made by others (not 
just you) asking for the change.



On 11-01-24 03:10 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> 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