Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03

Paul Coverdale <> Thu, 28 April 2011 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8944CE0733 for <>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIJnoh1AZxCo for <>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C572BE06BC for <>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP32 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:31 -0700
X-Originating-IP: []
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP32857BCBAD555E7BD1C4E3D09B0@phx.gbl>
Received: from PaulNewPC ([]) by BLU0-SMTP32.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:30 -0700
From: Paul Coverdale <>
To: 'Cullen Jennings' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:49:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AcwEYWiXX/ma3rrrSlmJgI6tvUBxzABb5e2g
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2011 22:49:30.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[890EE450:01CC05F6]
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
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, 28 Apr 2011 22:49:33 -0000

Hi Cullen,

I don't recall the discussion on this point, but it seems that in section
5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no worse than" the reference
codecs, whereas in the previous version it was "better than". I suggest that
we revert to "better than", otherwise what have we achieved performance-wise
with the new codec?



>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf
>Of Cullen Jennings
>Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:29 PM
>Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
>Subject: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03
>The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the last IETF
>have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of which were a
>consequence of the previous working group last call for this document.
>Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion centered on
>requirements for codec comparison, and the document update on April 13
>includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly evaluate
>consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of this
>draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any changes are needed
>before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please propose the new text
>you would like in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the
>reason you think the text should be changed.
>Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - that
>is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that.
>Jonathan & Cullen <CODEC WG Chairs>
>codec mailing list