Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, this was indeed intended to be informational (probably bad 
copy/paste). Let me fix that.

	Jean-Marc

On 11-01-24 06:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I agree with Mary here.
>
> On 1/24/11 4:24 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>> The document is currently specified as Standards Track, thus the use of
>> RFC 2119 language is entirely appropriate.  However, ISTM that the
>> document should really just be Informational, in particular given the
>> language in the introduction that this document defines a "suggested
>> process", as opposed to a process that is required for codec development.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mary.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jean-Marc Valin
>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  wrote:
>>
>>      Christian,
>>
>>      I actually responded to the last comments you made a while ago (oct
>>      2010). One issue I pointed out was your use of RFC2119 keywords,
>>      which (AFAIK) aren't appropriate for a requirements draft (the
>>      requirements aren't a standard). So statements like "Any codec
>>      specified by the IETF MUST be well specified", besides stating the
>>      obvious, are inappropriate.
>>
>>      There were also comments that just did not belong to this draft,
>>      such as the section on collaboration with other WGs. Collaboration
>>      is not a characteristic of a codec. So essentially, I merged the
>>      uncontroversial suggestion, but that's all I could do. As far as I'm
>>      aware, there's nothing in the current draft that goes against the
>>      consensus of the WG. If there are, please point to specific issues
>>      and to statements made by others (not just you) asking for the change.
>>
>>      Cheers,
>>
>>             Jean-Marc
>>
>>
>>      On 11-01-24 03:10 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>>
>>          Christian - perhaps you could post a list of the issues you see that
>>          haven't been addressed?
>>
>>          */[Christian Hoene] No Stephen, these issues have been written
>>          down in
>>          previous emails, drafts and issues in the Trac. They can be read
>>          by anybody
>>          anytime. Thus, I do not see any benefit of repeating them again
>>          if the
>>          editors continue to ignore any input. Indeed, they did not
>>          improve the
>>          draft despite sound technical reasons. /*
>>
>>          */Even if somebody is not fully involved in the technical
>>          details: It is
>>          very odd that despite many hundreds emails and many discussions
>>          since
>>          starting this WG the editors have not updated the draft beside minor
>>          changes such as the boilerplate and typos. /*
>>
>>          */Even if the lack of any update was not intentionally, the
>>          editors missed
>>          to do their job because they were too lazy or rather too busy
>>          doing other
>>          thinks./*
>>
>>          */I would be sad if all the fruitful discussions here and all
>>          the good
>>          contributions of many industry experts should have been in vain.
>>          Even if
>>          not all requirements can be met by Opus, a proper requirements
>>          document may
>>          be relevant for future solutions or other SDOs./*
>>
>>          */CH/*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          _______________________________________________
>>          codec mailing list
>>          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      codec mailing list
>>      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>