Re: [codec] possible issues to track

Stephan Wenger wrote:
> The comment was from me, and it was addressed towards the sensitivities of
> cross-SDO relationships.  It is one thing if the ITU states that something
> is better than ITU-Rec xxx, but it is another thing if another body states
> this.  Certainly without having received appropriate input from the ITU
> after requesting it through a liaison.

So do you suggest we drop the ITU codecs from the list? I don't really
mind, considering that I would not expect that part of the requirement to
be a limiting factor.

	Jean-Marc

> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> On 3.25.2010 14:32 , "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin@octasic.com> wrote:
> 
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> - avoid phrasing subjective comparision in relation to ITU codecs
>> I was actually surprised to see that one come up. As far as I know, most
>> ITU terms of reference include comparisons like "better than G.722 at rate
>> X". Does the ITU phrase this differently then we did?
>>
>> As for the way of discussing the issues, it seems to me like the mailing
>> list is just simpler. Most people so far have commented on the list anyway.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jean-Marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> 