Re: [codec] Individuals and hats

"Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <> Thu, 14 April 2011 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FED6E073F for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.116
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.483, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vfs8uyxj7-AF for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CA7E06A4 for <>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3646; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1302795377; x=1304004977; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=Vpdsvif0n2rFXLYSmp94CEwNDlUk+waNSmQ9hSSIUYw=; b=XcRSA6r1hFKTkiZkwayBQjVcf4+Xj3S1sY9Gq2EXRWipVjzoohlH3FDn C+OHtXT1GyvR0neZMg/cfS7MQDtzIGSacHf4LnGCGBi+MV9RQsvaIMK+T jqv3VpZMcA065RZobY0iR2JnVobGbqOAQG9+Cl5cI1Dh7gEnSGsfvlM5D U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEBACUTp02tJXG9/2dsb2JhbACXeY18d6REnQWFbgSFWowP
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,212,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="681358369"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2011 15:36:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3EFaGFk028026; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:36:16 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:36:15 -0500
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:36:14 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Individuals and hats
Thread-Index: Acv6cHvFwPGKpHLpRQO/mjTVVjJN4wAEFmMAAA25vCA=
References: <> <>
From: "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <>
To: Roni Even <>, Thorvald Natvig <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2011 15:36:15.0580 (UTC) FILETIME=[B10241C0:01CBFAB9]
Subject: Re: [codec] Individuals and hats
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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:36:18 -0000

+1 to Roni's comments.

Other commentary below (with "MAR:").

Michael Ramalho

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


I do not appreciate your comments since it accuses people of behaviors
you cannot prove. I can say on the same path that there are people who
not care about how it is done but they want a "good enough" codec that
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
standardizing of G.719 which is a royalty free codec and I can also
that Anisse was also part of this work.

Now for the codec work. My view is that if there is a claim that the
has better quality than other codec it need to be tested using well
established procedures that has been used to compare codec quality.
was a request from the people who had experience with codec quality
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
discussions about the proposal itself).

MAR: +1

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

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

Roni Even
With individual hat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of Thorvald Natvig
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:37 AM
> To:
> 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
> 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 mailing list