Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A3AE06C8 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CUPvLxclz7H for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC391E0696 for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=3342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1305776018; x=1306985618; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3R+SSEPkI3oAWla2qM/t4H9II1KAtLSsrw53qmGVw/A=; b=ljsjrFzRdsjf1c15ag1spDJD4hLO09hGSf/Zm5fIOt8enTIwLqTfbNQO KdsFh6yhxpAQn5zzPjYT94N0jR/FZUKWmIL9z9WaBhyzBxmAj0F09dfTI mfySL38FyrHgjFJFjkrUsrDJoODsvhVhFbtwh4ab5+LQ39Vs3IBodR8KU E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,235,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="450491905"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2011 03:33:38 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4J3XbEq016515; Thu, 19 May 2011 03:33:37 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F875CCD7-AC61-4A7B-B95F-C737E93202B1@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:33:36 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F12CE9EF-0DEB-4F41-9814-E105EAFBBF9B@cisco.com>
References: <F875CCD7-AC61-4A7B-B95F-C737E93202B1@cisco.com>
To: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 03:33:39 -0000

I have reviewed the WGLC comments. Given all the people that commented supported revering to the original "better than" text, I am declaring there is currently consensus for Paul's suggested changed of 

Paul Coverdale commented that:

> in section
> 5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no worse than" the reference
> codecs, whereas in the previous version it was "better than". I suggest
> that we revert to "better than", otherwise what have we achieved
> performance-wise with the new codec?

To address Erik's comment on how to measure, I'm not sure we need to cover this in the draft. Most performance monitoring tools would allow some analysis of percentage of time being used by the codec - for example gperf. I realize that how the measurements are done, and how the codec was optimized, will result in variations but as long as the results are not close to the edge of the requirement, it doubt it will be contentious of if the codec meets the requirement or not. If the editors can add some simple text to address this issues, I'd be happy to see that change but given the comments, I believe we have rough consensus to progress the draft without addressing this issue if Erik and the editors can not figure out some simple text to address his comment.  

Once the editors have submitted an updated draft, Jonathan and I will start the AD write up and send the draft to the AD to request publication.

Just as FYI for folks that have not done this before, I'll give the abbreviated list of what happens after that. The process can vary but the typical process for a draft like this goes:
1) the AD typically does some review and check they are OK with the draft - that may result in some updates. 
2) Then the AD sends it out for a two week IETF Last Call which may result in changes 
3) Then the draft gets put forward for approval by the whole IESG
4) Various IESG member may have comments of discusses on it that need to be resolved and could result in changes to the draft
5) after approval the RFC editor creates the RFC and will make changes
6) the authors get a final chance to catch any mistakes
7) it gets published as an RFC

Thanks, Cullen <CODEC WG Co-chair>

On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the last IETF have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of which were a consequence of the previous working group last call for this document. Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion centered on requirements for codec comparison, and the document update on April 13 includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly evaluate consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of this draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any changes are needed before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please propose the new text you would like in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the reason you think the text should be changed. 
> 
> Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - that is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that.
> 
> Jonathan & Cullen <CODEC WG Chairs>
> 
>