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
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
Precedence: list

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=20

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. =20

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.=20
2) Then the AD sends it out for a two week IETF Last Call which may =
result in changes=20
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:

>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - =
that is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that.
>=20
> Jonathan & Cullen <CODEC WG Chairs>
>=20
>=20