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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Richard,

I think I agree...

> It's not clear to me why SDOs need to be involved in the process of 
> determining whether existing codecs satisfy the requirements.

However, no-one can make the determination without requirements to make an 
evaluation against.

And to be sure that all the candidates are in the melting pot, it is at 
worst harmless to poll the other SDOs for their input and suggestions.

I would expect that one of the tasks of this WG is to coordinate and 
document (i.e. make) the evaluation.

Cheers,
Adrian

> Information on standard codecs -- including their technical and legal 
> aspects -- is pretty widely available.  And if information about a  codec 
> isn't generally available (e.g., if standards are being closely  held), 
> then that codec fails to meet the requirements by definition --  there's a 
> requirement that it by widely implementable, which requires  its 
> specification to be widely available.
>
> I've only been following this discussion off and on, but I don't  really 
> see anyone really challenging the requirements in the current  draft 
> charter, and I don't really see anyone proposing codecs that  meet those 
> requirements. Unless one of those two changes, it seems  evident that the 
> requirements are not being satisfied, so we should  just move on with 
> forming the WG.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only 
>>>> then
>>>> will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine  if
>>>> already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization)  meet 
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> I agree.  Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell 
>>> exactly
>>> how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the 
>>> detailed
>>> requirements are locked down.
>>>
>>> Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this  assessment. 
>>> Other
>>> SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond  with 
>>> their
>>> own work programs.  But in the end it would be up the IETF to  decide if
>>> there is too much overlap.
>>
>> Right, and this is surely easy to achieve and good project  management, 
>> anyway.
>>
>> Document the requirements to a reasonable level of detail.
>> Circulate the requirements explicitly requesting suggestions.
>> Evaluate the suggestions and give reasons for rejecting existing  Codecs.
>> Go on and develop a new Codec if required.
>>
>> It does not follow that people cannot start work on a new Codec  before 
>> completion of the third step, but the WG would be premature  to adopt a 
>> Codec solution draft before having formally surveyed the  landscape.
>>
>> The first step has to be done anyway, and I don't see that it can be 
>> considered as slowing down the development of a solution since it is 
>> impossible to build a solution without knowing the requirements. The 
>> second step might add a few weeks to the cycle. The third step, if  we 
>> are to believe the comments in this thread, will not take long.
>>
>> So why does anyone object to such a process?
>>
>> As to whether this sequence of steps should be codified in the  charter, 
>> my experience is that if you don't write down a process, it  is very hard 
>> to get interoperable implementations.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>