Re: [codec] Individuals and hats

+1 to Roni's comments.

Other commentary below (with "MAR:").

Michael Ramalho

-----Original Message-----
From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Roni Even
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:04 AM
To: 'Thorvald Natvig'; codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] Individuals and hats

Hi,

I do not appreciate your comments since it accuses people of behaviors
which
you cannot prove. I can say on the same path that there are people who
do
not care about how it is done but they want a "good enough" codec that
will
be royalty free developed by the IETF.

MAR: I too do not appreciate those comments in the thread below.

MAR: To imply a motive to the individuals who actually created a test
plan (that needed to be created) to test the validity of a design
quality goal (to be not worse than or better than X, Y, Z) that is
specified in the requirements ... is not appropriate.

MAR: Commentary on the reasonableness of such a test plan IS APPROPRIATE
(and others have reasonably done so).

MAR: But to assign pejorative adjectives to the test plan, such as "the
impossible test plan", I think is childish at best.

MAR: Don't take your marbles and go home ... work to create a "more
possible" test plan ... or other alternative (such as deleting the
quality claim in requirements late in the development process). I might
add that others may attribute negative motives to the latter suggestion
as well.

Personally I am not involved in MPEG work at all. I had past experience
with
standardizing of G.719 which is a royalty free codec and I can also
point
that Anisse was also part of this work.

Now for the codec work. My view is that if there is a claim that the
codec
has better quality than other codec it need to be tested using well
established procedures that has been used to compare codec quality.
There
was a request from the people who had experience with codec quality
testing
to produce a proposal for test procedures and when they did they are
attacked for their motivation by some (I want to note that there are
some
discussions about the proposal itself).

MAR: +1

I do not mind if the WG will decide to remove the quality claim and
continue
with developing  a royalty free codec with "good enough" quality not
saying
it is better than other codecs. 

I just think that it should be clear from the charter and requirements
what
is the purpose of the work. 

Regards
Roni Even
With individual hat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Thorvald Natvig
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:37 AM
> To: codec@ietf.org
> Subject: [codec] Individuals and hats
> 
> 
> I see from cursory googling that there is an overlap between some of
> the
> proponents of the impossible test plan and developers of MPEG USAC,
> which seems likely to become one of the most patent encumbered codecs
> in
> history.
> 
> There seems to be clear royalty-based gain to be had for individuals
> and
> companies if this workgroup should fail. Everyone in the IETF wears
the
> hat of an individual, but it might be better to be upfront about the
> motivations for helping the workgroup succeed when there is such a
> clear
> conflict of interest.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Thorvald
> _______________________________________________
> 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