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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 13 April 2011 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE968E077C for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.269
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YrKqQzfhCMXe for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC64E07A1 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3AFB40D20; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:48:50 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:45:28 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Erik Norvell <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms080203080708090507040607"
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:45:50 -0000

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.

> 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).


Peter Saint-Andre