Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 24 January 2011 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 DF2293A69BE for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:21:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.317
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 lyGTm3+AVBpM for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C57D3A69B5 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:21:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so1736256yxt.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:24:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EMQ+YExgTAE4zBOM6RyUQVBofSGTczsHZQ+3/vAUJQQ=; b=nRqxnc9BL83QpJWGEq4nwXx1tl++A5LfUy3EJAsIhRcVH9TmCJQh0uLhRJq7/uA8zk fMwEBoCd4rDSw8sNvZiBoMuOxnVRDWZhScWJ+7y02Rl5t+NqJA4B+UHx/ZLdFo+pgNkg fhxfdDTMu15oD1WGeTqCSAY2zRVIqlN9z9Tjs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=asoh6BG99ZSG2GnaPWb8bckjONaJLLa22BTSV0kF9QieJhMCO0mucwtEShyBJGjj0Z CYkI9tCetGXtGwWI5TsYes8FoA3EB+W1roztahmhXyyPy0o43clTL+oAJjPipqSsShxT P3D3mR41zt674fMQKcuFs0M011MFTQXQ/aeFE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.25.13 with SMTP id 13mr5809004agy.33.1295911470726; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.95.35 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:24:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D3E0676.1040704@octasic.com>
References: <4D3AD6EA.5020607@jdrosen.net> <000001cbbad6$4f44aea0$edce0be0$@uni-tuebingen.de> <AANLkTi=xTwet-toobezTZAsitgdTnTrMCHDD3OqChxF7@mail.gmail.com> <001001cbbc02$c6acf010$5406d030$@uni-tuebingen.de> <4D3E0676.1040704@octasic.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:24:30 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPKb03YjdBWVcJU1UFpFRWcXAiuvzJL4yV8YRq@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00163630f5fbdf81b4049a9fe604"
Cc: codec@ietf.org, Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:21:39 -0000

The document is currently specified as Standards Track, thus the use of RFC
2119 language is entirely appropriate.  However, ISTM that the document
should really just be Informational, in particular given the language in the
introduction that this document defines a "suggested process", as opposed to
a process that is required for codec development.

Regards,
Mary.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <
jean-marc.valin@octasic.com> wrote:

> Christian,
>
> I actually responded to the last comments you made a while ago (oct 2010).
> One issue I pointed out was your use of RFC2119 keywords, which (AFAIK)
> aren't appropriate for a requirements draft (the requirements aren't a
> standard). So statements like "Any codec specified by the IETF MUST be well
> specified", besides stating the obvious, are inappropriate.
>
> There were also comments that just did not belong to this draft, such as
> the section on collaboration with other WGs. Collaboration is not a
> characteristic of a codec. So essentially, I merged the uncontroversial
> suggestion, but that's all I could do. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing
> in the current draft that goes against the consensus of the WG. If there
> are, please point to specific issues and to statements made by others (not
> just you) asking for the change.
>
> Cheers,
>
>        Jean-Marc
>
>
> On 11-01-24 03:10 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>
>> Christian - perhaps you could post a list of the issues you see that
>> haven't been addressed?
>>
>> */[Christian Hoene] No Stephen, these issues have been written down in
>> previous emails, drafts and issues in the Trac. They can be read by
>> anybody
>> anytime. Thus, I do not see any benefit of repeating them again if the
>> editors continue to ignore any input. Indeed, they did not improve the
>> draft despite sound technical reasons. /*
>>
>> */Even if somebody is not fully involved in the technical details: It is
>> very odd that despite many hundreds emails and many discussions since
>> starting this WG the editors have not updated the draft beside minor
>> changes such as the boilerplate and typos. /*
>>
>> */Even if the lack of any update was not intentionally, the editors missed
>> to do their job because they were too lazy or rather too busy doing other
>> thinks./*
>>
>> */I would be sad if all the fruitful discussions here and all the good
>> contributions of many industry experts should have been in vain. Even if
>> not all requirements can be met by Opus, a proper requirements document
>> may
>> be relevant for future solutions or other SDOs./*
>>
>> */CH/*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>