Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Ron <> Mon, 18 April 2011 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA4AE078C for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tj1ZfZphidaw for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF7DE0776 for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQIAGtErE120qsf/2dsb2JhbACYGY1DeMN+hXEEhWCIIg
Received: from (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 23:42:07 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C054F8F3 for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:42:05 +0930 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id baroF8QP+5Ul for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:42:00 +0930 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D30914F8FE; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:42:00 +0930 (CST)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:42:00 +0930
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20110418141200.GE31013@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <> <> <> <20110418114716.GC31013@audi.shelbyville.oz> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
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: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:12:15 -0000

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:32:23AM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> if we see a result that concerns us, we can follow up.  Perhaps the
> test plan should say this explicitly, or perhaps we can just agree to
> discuss needed follow-ups when we see the results.

I believe that is exactly the solution that is being explored in the
<> subthread, which begins:

 I gave some more thought on your proposed test plan and as Cullen
 suggested, I think the main cause of disagreement is not that much on
 the testing, but on the conditions for publishing (large number of BT,
 NWT). Considering that ultimately, the decision to publish a spec is
 always based on WG consensus, then I think that problem can be
 completely bypassed. Once we make it up to the individuals to decide,
 then we can focus on "simply" designing a good test.

So let's get started on the tests that people individually think are
important so that we have their results to consider by the time we
think we have enough information to decide.

Do you see anything wrong with that solution?  It looks about as fair
and thorough as we can make it to everyone to me.