[codec] #26: Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Sun, 02 May 2010 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B563A68C4 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZw7-Lowm9th for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312213A68AE for <codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1O8Y8M-0007f1-Mt; Sun, 02 May 2010 05:18:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:18:54 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/26
Message-ID: <062.e0143a819120da8641009b7ca8a91dcf@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 26
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: [codec] #26: Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: codec@ietf.org
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:19:12 -0000

#26: Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 With which other codecs shall the CODEC be compared to.
 The requirements document lists:
   o  For narrowband: Speex (NB), GSM-FR, and iLBC(*)
   o  For wideband: Speex (WB), G.722, G.722.1(*)
   o  For super-wideband: Speex (UWB), G.722.1C(*)

 But aren't AMR, AMR-WB, G.719, and MP3 missing?
 How many comparisons shall be made?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/26>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>