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

Jean-Marc Valin <> Fri, 15 April 2011 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA25EE06FB for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOru+03jrBHD for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BB6E0677 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Received: from [] ([]) by (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <> for; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:16:31 -0400
From: Jean-Marc Valin <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8
To: Anisse Taleb <>
References: <>
In-reply-to: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:16:47 -0000

Hi Anisse,

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.

Overall I thought the conditions you were proposing in section 2 were 
pretty reasonable. There's a few details like selecting existing rates 
for codecs like Speex and iLBC, but that should be easy to solve. Once 
these are sorted out, interested parties (we had several hands raised in 
the last meeting) can start testing and we then let each individual 
decide on whether the codec is any good based on the results of the tests.

Sounds like a plan?


On 11-04-13 03:32 AM, Anisse Taleb wrote:
> Hi,
> Please find attached a first draft of a test plan of the IETF codec (Opus).
> The proposal does not claim to be complete, there are still many missing things, e.g. tandeming cases, tests with delay jitter, dtx etc. Consider it as a starting point for discussion where everyone is welcome to contribute in a constructive manner. Further updates are planned, but let's see first some initial comments.
> The attachment is a pdf version, please let me know if you would like to see another format and I would be glad to oblige.
> Comments and additions are welcome!
> Kind regards,
> /Anisse
> (From La Jolla - San Diego).
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list