Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Stefan,

> until now other SDOs have failed to produce a widely distributed good 
> quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the 
> Internet - especially one that is easily distributable - even though the 
> necessary technology has been available for a long time. Further, nothing 
> has substantially changed lately to make it likely that other SDOs are now 
> suddenly willing to or capable of doing that.
>
> The proposal to make IETF CODEC development depend on other SDOs is thus 
> not a constructive one and should not be followed.

Your logic may be flawed.

Until now the IETF has failed to produce a widely distributed good
 quality wideband and full-band codec that would be suitable for the
 Internet - especially one that is easily distributable - even though the
 necessary technology has been available for a long time.

But you don't suggest that as a reason not to do the work in the IETF.

The proposed draft charter does not state that the IETF work should be gated 
on other SDOs nor that the IETF shall not develop a Codec. Rather, it states 
the value of sharing the requirements work developed in the IETF with other 
SDOs, and it notes the benefits of listening to other SDOs if they point to 
existing Codecs that meet or nearly meet the requirements.

In the unlikely event that another SDO says "thanks for the requirements we 
would like to develop a solution in our SDO" we will need to examine the 
feasibility of their proposal and how people can best work on a solution. 
There does not seem to be any benefit in developing two Codecs to meet the 
same set of requirements.

As to Xavier's point: I think he is right that the wording in the charter 
could be usefully re-ordered so that the consultation is mentioned before 
the determination to develop a new solution.

Cheers,
Adrian