Re: [codec] Codec BOF agenda: Selection criteria and evaluation/testing

I do support all 3, or at least 1 and 2

________________________________

From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
To: Christian Hoene; Jason Fischl; codec@ietf.org
Subject: [codec] Codec BOF agenda: Selection criteria and
evaluation/testing

Having the SBC as a 3rd candidate is good news, though I may have missed
any email confirming it.

Given the choice of several candidate codecs, would it make sense to add
the following agenda items:

1. IETF policy of taking ownership and change control (by an A-D or IETF
legal expert)
2. Selection criteria for the Internet voice codec
3. Testing and evaluation procedure

Opinions?

Thanks, Henry

On 7/9/09 1:18 AM, "Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:

> 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