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

Hi Anisse,

On 11-04-18 09:54 PM, Anisse Taleb wrote:
> The WG would have failed its goals if the outcome of this activity is
> to publish an encumbered codec that has a quality which is inferior
> to current state of the art codecs. At an equal encumbrance level,
> quality is the deciding factor.

The goal is still for unencumbered with better quality than existing 
unencumbered codecs. If, at the time we decide on whether to publish 
this codec, I feel like it is not safe to implement without paying 
royalties, I can assure you that I will personally vote/hum/whatever 
against.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> Kind regards, /Anisse
>> -----Original Message----- From: codec-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Sent: Monday,
>> April 18, 2011 4:12 PM To: codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec]
>> draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:32:23AM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
>>> if we see a result that concerns us, we can follow up.  Perhaps
>>> the test plan should say this explicitly, or perhaps we can just
>>> agree to discuss needed follow-ups when we see the results.
>>
>> I believe that is exactly the solution that is being explored in
>> the <4DA7B88F.80002@jmvalin.ca>  subthread, which begins:
>>
>> I gave some more thought on your proposed test plan and as Cullen
>> suggested, I think the main cause of disagreement is not that much
>> on the testing, but on the conditions for publishing (large number
>> of BT, NWT). Considering that ultimately, the decision to publish a
>> spec is always based on WG consensus, then I think that problem can
>> be completely bypassed. Once we make it up to the individuals to
>> decide, then we can focus on "simply" designing a good test.
>>
>> So let's get started on the tests that people individually think
>> are important so that we have their results to consider by the time
>> we think we have enough information to decide.
>>
>> Do you see anything wrong with that solution?  It looks about as
>> fair and thorough as we can make it to everyone to me.
>>
>> Cheers, Ron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> _______________________________________________ codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>