Re: [codec] Adopting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-06 as a WG item

On 10-09-24 09:22 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> My preference would be to resolve strategic issues such as text/code being
> normative (where it seems we are very close to consensus: code it should
> be),

Considering that I have not heard anyone argue against code being the 
reference, I assume there is consensus on that. Anyone disagrees on 
that? If not, I'll add that to the draft.

> bit-exact or not (and what are the conformance points if its not
> bit-exactness),

Again, from the previous IETF meeting (logs at 
http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/codec/2010-07-26.txt) I thought most/all 
agreed with having a fixed-point reference, but not "force" 
implementations to be bit-exact with it. The current draft already 
mentions that and leaves it up to the codec draft to specify the exact 
conformance requirements.

> and characterization gating,

Well, that may be the only one that's still being debated. I think that 
can be resolved after adopting the draft.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> before accepting the draft as a
> WG item.

> That said, I'm willing to support the adoption of the draft as WG
> item even in the absence of this consensus, but only under the following two
> conditions:
>
> 1. The draft clearly states that there is no consensus yet on the subject of
> bit-exactness.
> 2. The draft clearly states that there is no consensus yet on the subject of
> characterization gating (in the sense of Jonathan's email sent a couple of
> hours ago).
>
> These conditions represent my points 11 and 15 of my email sent to this list
> on August 21, on neither of which I'm in agreement with the current language
> (or the current intention), nor I have seen any movement on the proponents
> on the other side towards a compromise/consensus position.  I don't have the
> bandwidth this week or next to suggest alternative language, but will try to
> do so within the two week time window Jonathan proposed.
>
> In order to move things forward: in both cases, I have no problems if the
> current text stays in, as long as it is made unambiguously clear that this
> is not a consensus position, but rather one possible option for a resolution
> of the question, and that other options are expressedly solicited.
>
> The reason for these requests are hopefully obvious: a WG draft should
> represent the consensus of the WG, and should not contain non-consensus
> positions without disclaimers.
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
> On 9.24.2010 11:30 , "Jonathan Rosenberg"<jdrosen@jdrosen.net>  wrote:
>
>> At the last IETF meeting, we discussed adopting the codec guidelines
>> document as a working group item. This did not pass, due to concerns
>> over whether it was in the right direction. We put out a call for
>> alternative documents over the next 5 week period.
>>
>> Some text was proposed by Stephan for inclusion, which was incorporated
>> into the document. Stephan also contributed some comments, including a
>> few open issues which still require some discussion.
>>
>> However, the chairs feel that it is not necessary for all open items to
>> be closed prior to adopting a document as a working group item. Indeed,
>> discussion on the content of the document is a good sign that it is a
>> reasonable foundation for the working group item. Given the lack of
>> alternative documents to use as a starting point, the chairs plan on
>> adopting this as a working group item in two weeks time.
>>
>> If you disagree, please speak up - and even better - submit an
>> alternative document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan R.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>