IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Anisse Taleb <anisse.taleb@huawei.com> Tue, 19 April 2011 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <anisse.taleb@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE16E06EF for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Blkz45-PI--V for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrga02-in.huawei.com (lhrga02-in.huawei.com [195.33.106.143]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AF8E0611 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrga02-in [172.18.7.45]) by lhrga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJV003RRMNIQA@lhrga02-in.huawei.com> for codec@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:54:55 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LHREML202-EDG.china.huawei.com ([172.18.7.118]) by lhrga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LJV00EXGMNIZ8@lhrga02-in.huawei.com> for codec@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:54:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.31) by LHREML202-EDG.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.189) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:54:50 +0100
Received: from LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::f93f:958b:5b06:4f36]) by LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:54:38 +0100
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:54:37 +0000
From: Anisse Taleb <anisse.taleb@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <20110418141200.GE31013@audi.shelbyville.oz>
X-Originating-IP: [10.200.217.213]
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Message-id: <F5AD4C2E5FBF304ABAE7394E9979AF7C26BC8CCF@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Thread-topic: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
Thread-index: AQHL/a5cJQgDHmbkU0q3uka00W6W65RjcJoAgAAdXoCAAAsSAIAA02EA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <F5AD4C2E5FBF304ABAE7394E9979AF7C26BC684E@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4DA5A748.2050401@fas.harvard.edu> <F5AD4C2E5FBF304ABAE7394E9979AF7C26BC870C@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <20110418114716.GC31013@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BANLkTi=K4nWp3UX7TFtbPJd_iDsy-n3L+w@mail.gmail.com> <20110418141200.GE31013@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:54:56 -0000

Hi Ron,

The WG would have failed its goals if the outcome of this activity is to publish an encumbered codec that has a quality which is inferior to current state of the art codecs.
At an equal encumbrance level, quality is the deciding factor. 

Kind regards,
/Anisse
> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Ron
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:12 PM
> To: codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:32:23AM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> > if we see a result that concerns us, we can follow up.  Perhaps the
> > test plan should say this explicitly, or perhaps we can just agree to
> > discuss needed follow-ups when we see the results.
> 
> I believe that is exactly the solution that is being explored in the
> <4DA7B88F.80002@jmvalin.ca> subthread, which begins:
> 
>  I gave some more thought on your proposed test plan and as Cullen
>  suggested, I think the main cause of disagreement is not that much on
>  the testing, but on the conditions for publishing (large number of BT,
>  NWT). Considering that ultimately, the decision to publish a spec is
>  always based on WG consensus, then I think that problem can be
>  completely bypassed. Once we make it up to the individuals to decide,
>  then we can focus on "simply" designing a good test.
> 
> So let's get started on the tests that people individually think are
> important so that we have their results to consider by the time we
> think we have enough information to decide.
> 
> Do you see anything wrong with that solution?  It looks about as fair
> and thorough as we can make it to everyone to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email