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

Erik Norvell <erik.norvell@ericsson.com> Thu, 05 May 2011 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <erik.norvell@ericsson.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 8FE6DE0773 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 BsMZAB7qQEZr for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B324EE0728 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bd5ae000002ba3-e3-4dc2bcbe41d9
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 78.1C.11171.EBCB2CD4; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.98]) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.87]) with mapi; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:34 +0200
From: Erik Norvell <erik.norvell@ericsson.com>
To: Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca>, 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:34 +0200
Thread-Topic: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
Thread-Index: AcwEYWiXX/ma3rrrSlmJgI6tvUBxzABb5e2gAVk1WxA=
Message-ID: <027A93CE4A670242BD91A44E37105AEF17B6C30EDB@ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <F875CCD7-AC61-4A7B-B95F-C737E93202B1@cisco.com> <BLU0-SMTP32857BCBAD555E7BD1C4E3D09B0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP32857BCBAD555E7BD1C4E3D09B0@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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, 05 May 2011 15:05:37 -0000

Hi,

I agree with Paul here, setting the requirement to "no worse than" for RF codec references would be setting the bar too low. Now it looks like the codec is not required to be better than any existing RF codec.

The section on complexity requirements now specifies a number in terms of percentage of CPU power. However, it is still unclear to me how this requirement would be measured.

Best regards,
Erik 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Paul Coverdale
> Sent: den 29 april 2011 00:49
> To: 'Cullen Jennings'; codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
> 
> Hi Cullen,
> 
> I don't recall the discussion on this point, but it seems 
> 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?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ...Paul
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf 
> >Of Cullen Jennings
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:29 PM
> >To: codec@ietf.org
> >Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
> >Subject: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
> >
> >
> >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>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>