Re: [codec] Updated Agenda for Codec BOF

Hi,
Seeing this comment is making me repeat my suggestion that we should not
present codecs in the BOF. Instead I would like to see a presentation on the
proposed work, will there be one codec from this WG or many codecs all
addressing wideband, open source and RF requirements, I am sure that having
many codecs will help developers choose the right one and achieve great
interoperability, so probably we are talking about one codec.
If you want to have one codec as the outcome than the proposed process
should be presented in the BOF. What are the criteria to decide on
requirements ( already saw some contradictions on the mailing list regarding
algorithmic delay and complexity) and how to select one.
Regards
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Christian Hoene
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:18 AM
> To: 'Jason Fischl'; codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] Updated Agenda for Codec BOF
> 
> > 4. What type of engineering work would this be? ( 25 min )
> > Have presentations on the two proposed codecs. Focus is to make sure
> it
> > looks feasible to do the technical
> > work to meet the goals. This should also help clarify what type of
> work is
> > being considered.
> > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vos-silk-00.txt
> > - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-valin-celt-codec-00.txt
> 
> I just like to remind the chairs that their is a third proposed codec
> which
> will fulfill the assumed goals of this WG. SBC has a much lower
> complexity
> than CELT and achieves nearly the some quality vs. rate performance
> tradeoff. And it has been standardized already.
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec