Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Robert Elz <[e-mail]>]

    Date:        Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:50:30 +0200
    From:        "Roni Even" <[e-mail]>
    Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

  | I am not sure but are you suggesting that the IETF will define the
  | requirements, metric and quality assessment requirements and all proposed
  | codecs should provide the results and then the WG will choose the best codec
  | bases without discussing the codec itself. This is what I would call a
  | selection process (at least in ITU terms).

The WG can decide how it wants to go about the process, I'd just prefer that
the charter not (effectively) rule out selection of something that already
exists with an assumption that something entirely new will be created.

  | The problem is that the IETF process allows anyone to contribute to existing
  | work hopefully leading to a better the end result.

Of course, but also be aware that there's no one definition of "better".
Something that can be defined quickly and used immediately might be much
better than something it takes 5 years to create and more to implement,
even if the invented one saves a little bandwidth or has better loss
recovery characteristics.

  | What about the change control, does it stay with the original contributor or
  | can the IETF modify the codec based on input from other parties, which means
  | that the codec may change by the IETF anyhow. 

The IETF will have change control over its protocol, of course, which may
cause it to diverge from that upon which it was originally based.  And yes,
everything changes with time.

kre