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

Ron <> Tue, 19 April 2011 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B118E068E for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kr2Wy7dMS5dr for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8920CE0661 for <>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Apr 2011 14:48:52 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AAD4F8F3 for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:48:50 +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 eAck4lZ3eYwW for <>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:48:50 +0930 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3ADFC4F8FE; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:48:50 +0930 (CST)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:48:50 +0930
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20110419051850.GF31013@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <COL103-W39BD44E16F636F4DB06934D0900@phx.gbl> <>
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: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:19:28 -0000

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 03:38:46AM +0000, Anisse Taleb wrote:
> Paul,
> Strictly speaking, the probability of failing at least one requirement
> increases (or stays constant in dependent cases) with increasing the number
> of requirements. Of course as you mention, the responses of the listeners are
> not really random and a heads-tail modeling of the pass-fail is way too
> simplistic. I didn't look at the analysis in depth, neither did I verify the
> numbers.  I think Greg is mostly concerned with the size of the test and how
> the analysis of the requirements would be used to derive a conclusion about
> the codec.

I think he's worried, as are many others, that it's sufficiently
sophisticated as to be indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

I think we can be equally worried that you haven't done this analysis
and yet still assert that this test is somehow more valid that the ones
which have already been conducted.

> [Off topic]
> Statistics are quite fun to play with, a while ago a Conspiracy theorist
> tried to convince me that man never landed on the moon and that it was
> impossible that Apollo 11 made it. The millions of components, given the
> technology of that time, had  a significant probability of failure that in
> total it was beyond doubt that such a rocket would have gone off course.

I guess you're also unaware of how many rockets they pranged before the
(g)odds did favour them with success, and how unrepeatable that success
subsequently proved to be.  And that they also didn't have a worried
cartel shrilling OMG patent! at them at every step of the way.

So can we please return to the topic at hand?

Do you or do you not have a test plan that you wish to conduct before
we reach the WG milestone of assessing the results of the currently
frozen candidate codec?  The clock is ticking, and you're wasting the
time that you do have remaining to perform that task and present its
results for the group to consider.