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

Ron <ron@debian.org> Thu, 21 January 2010 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.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 C0B723A693B; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
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 92iszA7LpxUU; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194893A67DD; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:39:46 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArEEANP1V0t5LQv+/2dsb2JhbACBRtcshDwE
Received: from ppp121-45-11-254.lns20.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([121.45.11.254]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2010 01:09:42 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F2D4F902; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:09:40 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LodzPMXnp7nP; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:09:40 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 189364F903; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:09:40 +1030 (CST)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:09:40 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: stephane.proust@orange-ftgroup.com
Message-ID: <20100121143940.GD19558@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <4b3373d7.02135e0a.241a.fffffb62@mx.google.com> <a123a5d60912241926l6f2255e3kc15d1d21573adeb9@mail.gmail.com> <B67FB114-FDA9-4431-A2E2-6ACF344B2EA7@cisco.com> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959C6B@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <20100121000303.GA1250@besserwisser.org> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C02959FE1@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <20100121121352.GD1250@besserwisser.org> <130EBB38279E9847BAAAE0B8F9905F8C0295A258@esealmw109.eemea.ericsson.se> <6e9223711001210509k1bc134bav224a619971d04a77@mail.gmail.com> <22948_1264081478_4B585A46_22948_6286_1_4D1AA2A55522044480C9B9CF97A9340999F1EB@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <22948_1264081478_4B585A46_22948_6286_1_4D1AA2A55522044480C9B9CF97A9340999F1EB@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, codec@ietf.org, ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, mansaxel@besserwisser.org, stephen.botzko@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Should the IETF standardize wideband Internet codec\(s\)? " <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: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:39:48 -0000

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:44:36PM +0100, stephane.proust@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> In line as well : The first stage of the work has not been done yet : the
> detailed technical requirements have not been defined and agreed yet, the
> second stage of the work with other SDOs to analyse if already exiting codecs
> meet these requirements is not done and yet the Charter on the basis of which
> this WG could be launched is formulated as if the conclusion resulting from
> this 2 stages was known and obvious : no existing codec is suitable and so a
> new codec is needed
>  
> so, again : only these first 2 steps (requirement definition and standard
> analysis) are, at this stage, relevant to start a WG since the next steps
> depend on the conclusion of this work.
>  
> for instance , there could be some middle way between developping a new codec
> and reusing an existing standard : it could be much more efficient to simply
> extend/adapt an existing standard and, to achieve this, it would be better to
> rely on the SDO that have standardized this codec. 

Potential candidate codecs have been discussed since the very first BoF,
and surely before.  We have plenty of representatives from other SDOs
present in the group, so my question is, if such codecs exist, then surely
they should be put up, if not as contenders, then as baseline measures of
best practice in some matter or another.  Why hasn't that happened?

With the exception of a few "G.711 should be enough for anyone" jokes,
I haven't seen anyone present a "this can already do what you want" codec
that the group hasn't responded with "we can (already) do better than that".

If there are other codecs that we should have to measure up against, then
indeed I'd warmly welcome other SDOs to make their best suggestions soon,
for consideration during the next stage of work.  Anything you think puts
one of the existing candidates to shame in some aspect or another, would
certainly be a valuable and practical measuring stick we can use.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have already done many of these measurements
for themselves.  We just need to whittle that down to the ones that give us
useful bars to raise.  Which ones are we missing still?

Cheers,
Ron