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

Dear Jean-Marc,

I really appreciate your comment and I can assure you of the same from my side. I am happy that we have an agreement on this point. 

It's probably too much asking, are you planning a new release overcoming the recently declared IPRs? Feel free to answer me outside the list if you wish.

Kind regards,
/Anisse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jmvalin@jmvalin.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:52 AM
> To: Anisse Taleb
> Cc: Ron; codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
> 
> Hi Anisse,
> 
> On 11-04-18 09:54 PM, Anisse Taleb wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The goal is still for unencumbered with better quality than existing
> unencumbered codecs. If, at the time we decide on whether to publish
> this codec, I feel like it is not safe to implement without paying
> royalties, I can assure you that I will personally vote/hum/whatever
> against.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Jean-Marc
> 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________ codec mailing list
> > codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> >
> >