Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

[snip]

>> What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only then
>> will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if
>> already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet them.
>
> I agree.  Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell exactly
> how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the detailed
> requirements are locked down.
>
> Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this assessment. 
> Other
> SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond with 
> their
> own work programs.  But in the end it would be up the IETF to decide if
> there is too much overlap.

Right, and this is surely easy to achieve and good project management, 
anyway.

Document the requirements to a reasonable level of detail.
Circulate the requirements explicitly requesting suggestions.
Evaluate the suggestions and give reasons for rejecting existing Codecs.
Go on and develop a new Codec if required.

It does not follow that people cannot start work on a new Codec before 
completion of the third step, but the WG would be premature to adopt a Codec 
solution draft before having formally surveyed the landscape.

The first step has to be done anyway, and I don't see that it can be 
considered as slowing down the development of a solution since it is 
impossible to build a solution without knowing the requirements. The second 
step might add a few weeks to the cycle. The third step, if we are to 
believe the comments in this thread, will not take long.

So why does anyone object to such a process?

As to whether this sequence of steps should be codified in the charter, my 
experience is that if you don't write down a process, it is very hard to get 
interoperable implementations.

Thanks,
Adrian