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

["Ingemar Johansson S" <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Since I started on the IETF journey there have been a few occasions
where the intent of a WG has been discussed, my recollection is that in
all these cases people have looked into the charter for guidance. The
charter is IMHO a very strong document and once it is settled it is not
easily challenged. 

Also, common sense (based on earlier discussion and email) does not
always apply if the WG disussion gets heated and we all know that there
are different opinions around this WG :-). For this reason the charter
must state even what can be regarded as basic common sense (like he one
proposed in my earlier email).

Regards
/Ingemar 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monty Montgomery [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: den 21 januari 2010 06:41
> To: Ingemar Johansson S
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
> 
> > As proposed by Xavier and his colleagues at Orange these 
> requirements once defined should be giving the opportunity to 
> the community and to other SDOs members to check for codecs 
> potentially fullfilling the requirements.
> 
> It is already the case that submissions are welcome from any 
> interested parties, and we hope very much that the SDOs do 
> have technology or even finished codecs to offer.  I don't 
> think that needs to be spelled out in language special to the SDOs.
> 
> > What would be the point of conducting codec development 
> when a standardized codec out there fullfills the requirements ?
> 
> This is another facet of 'our goals do not include rubber-stamping'.
> Should an unremembered codec be found lurking that fufills 
> all requirements, it would serve to raise the bar we set for 
> ourselves.
> The more and better the inputs, the better the potential 
> results. We seek to touch fire.
> 
> > "Once the first requirement establishment stage is 
> completed, the working group will then communicate detailed 
> description of the requirements and goals to other SDOs 
> including the ITU-T, 3GPP, and MPEG. If an available 
> standardized codec actually fullfills, or codec under current 
> standardization will likely fulfil the requirements, then the 
> working group may decide to terminate the codec development work."
> 
> In the event an outside codec is discovered that meets all 
> requirements and cannot be improved upon, the only sensible 
> course of action would be accept it.  I see no reason to 
> exhaustively codify basic common sense for every unlikely 
> scenario.  [It is not that I consider contributions from the 
> SDOs to be unlikely, I consider it unlikely there would be no 
> potential for any improvement given the assembed talent and 
> that such a codec already exists and nobody knows about it.  
> If I'm wrong-- everybody still wins, and I'm happy with 
> losing the bet.]
> 
> Monty
> Xiph.Org
>