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

[Stephen Botzko <[e-mail]>]

in-line
Stephen

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 4/13/11 8:48 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:
> > Hi Ben, all
> >
> > If the codec is not ready for testing, then I cannot see how it could
> > be ready for standardization. To me the steps would be
> >
> > - freeze the codec when it is stable - test and evaluate - check if
> > requirements are met a) if yes standardize b) if not do not
> > standarize and rather go back and improve
> >
> > Informal testing should still be done during development to eliminate
> > the risk of b).
>
> My understanding is that informal testing has already been done by quite
> a few participants in this WG.
>

Yes, and Erik is simply suggesting that should continue while the codec
development is underway.


>
> > I also think the encumbrance of the codec is unclear at this point
> > and I don't think rushing to finalize the standard would serve the
> > purpose of this WG. Due to the encumbrance there may still be changes
> > required which may affect the quality, and the final testing should
> > begin after this has been resolved.
>
> We knew when we started this process that there might be encumbrances.
> We even knew that there might be unreported encumbrances that would
> emerge only after the codec was published as an RFC, or only after the
> code was in use by companies who would be big targets for patent
> lawsuits. I see no reason to delay publication until all possible
> encumbrances have been resolved, whatever that means (as we all know,
> patent claims are not resolved at the IETF, they are resolved in courts
> of law).
>

I think Erik was simply referring to the ongoing work already started by the
codec developers [whatever-it-is that is being done in response to the
Qualcomm declaration].
It sounds like you are suggesting this work should be halted, and we should
simply publish the current codec version???  It would be interesting to know
who else would agree with that proposal.


>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>