Re: [codec] possible issues to track

Perhaps something as simple as saying "not worse" instead of "better".

Stephen Bozko

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:

> No, I just suggest to attempt being just a little bit diplomatic.
> Stephan
>
>
>
> On 3.25.2010 14:46 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Stephan Wenger wrote:
> >> The comment was from me, and it was addressed towards the sensitivities
> of
> >> cross-SDO relationships.  It is one thing if the ITU states that
> something
> >> is better than ITU-Rec xxx, but it is another thing if another body
> states
> >> this.  Certainly without having received appropriate input from the ITU
> >> after requesting it through a liaison.
> >
> > So do you suggest we drop the ITU codecs from the list? I don't really
> > mind, considering that I would not expect that part of the requirement to
> > be a limiting factor.
> >
> > Jean-Marc
> >
> >> Stephan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3.25.2010 14:32 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>>> - avoid phrasing subjective comparision in relation to ITU codecs
> >>> I was actually surprised to see that one come up. As far as I know,
> most
> >>> ITU terms of reference include comparisons like "better than G.722 at
> rate
> >>> X". Does the ITU phrase this differently then we did?
> >>>
> >>> As for the way of discussing the issues, it seems to me like the
> mailing
> >>> list is just simpler. Most people so far have commented on the list
> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Marc
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> codec mailing list
> >>> codec@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>