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
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
Precedence: list

Hi,

I agree with Paul here, setting the requirement to "no worse than" for RF c=
odec references would be setting the bar too low. Now it looks like the cod=
ec is not required to be better than any existing RF codec.

The section on complexity requirements now specifies a number in terms of p=
ercentage of CPU power. However, it is still unclear to me how this require=
ment would be measured.

Best regards,
Erik=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org]=20
> 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
>=20
> Hi Cullen,
>=20
> I don't recall the discussion on this point, but it seems=20
> that in section 5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no=20
> worse than" the reference codecs, whereas in the previous=20
> version it was "better than". I suggest that we revert to=20
> "better than", otherwise what have we achieved=20
> performance-wise with the new codec?
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> ...Paul
>=20
>=20
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org]=20
> On Behalf=20
> >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=20
> last IETF=20
> >have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of=20
> which were a=20
> >consequence of the previous working group last call for this=20
> document.
> >Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion=20
> centered on=20
> >requirements for codec comparison, and the document update=20
> on April 13=20
> >includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly=20
> evaluate=20
> >consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of=20
> >this draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any=20
> changes are=20
> >needed before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please=20
> propose the new=20
> >text you would like in the draft to the list before May 10=20
> along with=20
> >the reason you think the text should be changed.
> >
> >Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test=20
> plan - that=20
> >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
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> =