[codec] comparitive quality testing
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@juniper.net> Thu, 14 April 2011 14:28 UTC
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F14DE08A6 for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTe4IHTBuRUj for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271C0E08A5 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTacEfQe4QhL7lBb+/wxcafBjPbSwOTeg@postini.com; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:28:15 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:25:28 -0700
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@juniper.net>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:25:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: comparitive quality testing
Thread-Index: AQHL+q7ZhtE2QkE93ES+tYUuWp4R5A==
Message-ID: <BCB3F026FAC4C145A4A3330806FEFDA93BA8B64643@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [codec] comparitive quality testing
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:28:17 -0000
Roni Even [ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] wrote: > I do not mind if the WG will decide to remove the quality claim and continue > with developing a royalty free codec with "good enough" quality not saying > it is better than other codecs. > I just think that it should be clear from the charter and requirements what > is the purpose of the work. It's funny how we can argue and argue, only to later realize that it comes down to a simple mutual misunderstanding. I thought everyone was already on the same page with respect to the goals: it's good to be as good as possible, but the chartered purpose of the WG was only to do a "good quality" codec that was suited to the listed applications and deployments. As a developer I know that quality testing is important, and of course we've done a lot of it of various types. I strongly believe in scientific testing, so of course my first instinct would have been to do it here, but perhaps the reality of the consensus process makes that less reasonable—as others have pointed out, most other WGs don't really do anything comparable to quality testing. Likewise, making sure the outcome is as legally unencumbered as I can is also very important to me, but because of the vulgarities of the process and the law, this isn't something that the working group itself makes promises about. So, perhaps it makes sense for the working group to not make any quality promises in the same way it makes no promises about patents. It seems clear enough to me now that we can much more easily come to consensus about achieving good-enough status than about formal testing gates and requirements. We should accept your suggestion—drop all the comparative quality requirements from the requirements draft, and stop discussing comparative quality here—and then make some progress on technology, rather than continue bickering about details where we are not going to come to consensus. The market can figure out the comparative quality question on its own.
- [codec] comparitive quality testing Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing David Virette
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Alan Duric
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Anisse Taleb
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Monty Montgomery
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Stephan Wenger
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Steve Underwood
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Alan Duric
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing Roman Shpount
- [codec] iLBC deployment statistics (Re: compariti… Harald Alvestrand
- [codec] Deployment of iLBC Re: comparitive qualit… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing: vote to … Jean-Francois Mule
- Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing: vote to … Roman Shpount