Re: [codec] Adopting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-06 as a WG item

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I agree with Stephan's comments and have one other question

The text currently says: 
"Once IETF participants agree that the codec being developed meets
       the requirements (e.g., via a working group last call), IETF
       participants can begin the task of characterizing the codec.  The
       characterization process is described under Section 3."

Does it mean that the codec may be published without doing characterization
test before. Reading the draft it looks like these are the tests that will
verify that the codec is within the requirements. Maybe you should add some
text saying that the there will be a working group last call after
characterization.


Roni Even


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:22 AM
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] Adopting draft-valin-codec-guidelines-06 as a WG
> item
> 
> >
> > If you disagree, please speak up - and even better - submit an
> > alternative document.
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> My preference would be to resolve strategic issues such as text/code
> being
> normative (where it seems we are very close to consensus: code it
> should
> be), bit-exact or not (and what are the conformance points if its not
> bit-exactness), and characterization gating, before accepting the draft
> as a
> WG item.  That said, I'm willing to support the adoption of the draft
> as WG
> item even in the absence of this consensus, but only under the
> following two
> conditions:
> 
> 1. The draft clearly states that there is no consensus yet on the
> subject of
> bit-exactness.
> 2. The draft clearly states that there is no consensus yet on the
> subject of
> characterization gating (in the sense of Jonathan's email sent a couple
> of
> hours ago).
> 
> These conditions represent my points 11 and 15 of my email sent to this
> list
> on August 21, on neither of which I'm in agreement with the current
> language
> (or the current intention), nor I have seen any movement on the
> proponents
> on the other side towards a compromise/consensus position.  I don't
> have the
> bandwidth this week or next to suggest alternative language, but will
> try to
> do so within the two week time window Jonathan proposed.
> 
> In order to move things forward: in both cases, I have no problems if
> the
> current text stays in, as long as it is made unambiguously clear that
> this
> is not a consensus position, but rather one possible option for a
> resolution
> of the question, and that other options are expressedly solicited.
> 
> The reason for these requests are hopefully obvious: a WG draft should
> represent the consensus of the WG, and should not contain non-consensus
> positions without disclaimers.
> 
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> On 9.24.2010 11:30 , "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > At the last IETF meeting, we discussed adopting the codec guidelines
> > document as a working group item. This did not pass, due to concerns
> > over whether it was in the right direction. We put out a call for
> > alternative documents over the next 5 week period.
> >
> > Some text was proposed by Stephan for inclusion, which was
> incorporated
> > into the document. Stephan also contributed some comments, including
> a
> > few open issues which still require some discussion.
> >
> > However, the chairs feel that it is not necessary for all open items
> to
> > be closed prior to adopting a document as a working group item.
> Indeed,
> > discussion on the content of the document is a good sign that it is a
> > reasonable foundation for the working group item. Given the lack of
> > alternative documents to use as a starting point, the chairs plan on
> > adopting this as a working group item in two weeks time.
> >
> > If you disagree, please speak up - and even better - submit an
> > alternative document.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan R.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec