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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 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.