Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02

Hi Jean-Marc Valin,

you are referring to the changes in the guideline doc? 

Thank you for considering my comments from October last year. I have to
admit that I have not read the latest version of the guidelines document so
far. I will give you updated comments (with any) well before the next
deadline.

With best regards,

 Christian 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@octasic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:09 AM
> To: Christian Hoene
> Cc: 'Stephen Botzko'; codec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [codec] 3 week WGLC on draft-ietf-codec-requirements-02
> 
> Christian,
> 
> I actually responded to the last comments you made a while ago (oct 2010).
> One issue I pointed out was your use of RFC2119 keywords, which (AFAIK)
> aren't appropriate for a requirements draft (the requirements aren't a
> standard). So statements like "Any codec specified by the IETF MUST be
well
> specified", besides stating the obvious, are inappropriate.
> 
> There were also comments that just did not belong to this draft, such as
the
> section on collaboration with other WGs. Collaboration is not a
characteristic
> of a codec. So essentially, I merged the uncontroversial suggestion, but
that's
> all I could do. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the current draft
that
> goes against the consensus of the WG. If there are, please point to
specific
> issues and to statements made by others (not just you) asking for the
> change.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Jean-Marc
> 
> On 11-01-24 03:10 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> > Christian - perhaps you could post a list of the issues you see that
> > haven't been addressed?
> >
> > */[Christian Hoene] No Stephen, these issues have been written down in
> > previous emails, drafts and issues in the Trac. They can be read by
> > anybody anytime. Thus, I do not see any benefit of repeating them
> > again if the editors continue to ignore any input. Indeed, they did
> > not improve the draft despite sound technical reasons. /*
> >
> > */Even if somebody is not fully involved in the technical details: It
> > is very odd that despite many hundreds emails and many discussions
> > since starting this WG the editors have not updated the draft beside
> > minor changes such as the boilerplate and typos. /*
> >
> > */Even if the lack of any update was not intentionally, the editors
> > missed to do their job because they were too lazy or rather too busy
> > doing other
> > thinks./*
> >
> > */I would be sad if all the fruitful discussions here and all the good
> > contributions of many industry experts should have been in vain. Even
> > if not all requirements can be met by Opus, a proper requirements
> > document may be relevant for future solutions or other SDOs./*
> >
> > */CH/*
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > codec mailing list
> > codec@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec