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

[Stephen Botzko <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 4/13/11 11:57 AM, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> > in-line
> > Stephen
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 4/13/11 8:48 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:
> >     > Hi Ben, all
> >     >
> >     > If the codec is not ready for testing, then I cannot see how it
> could
> >     > be ready for standardization. To me the steps would be
> >     >
> >     > - freeze the codec when it is stable - test and evaluate - check if
> >     > requirements are met a) if yes standardize b) if not do not
> >     > standarize and rather go back and improve
> >     >
> >     > Informal testing should still be done during development to
> eliminate
> >     > the risk of b).
> >
> >     My understanding is that informal testing has already been done by
> quite
> >     a few participants in this WG.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and Erik is simply suggesting that should continue while the codec
> > development is underway.
>
> Yep, testing is good. Let's keep doing it. :)
>
> >     > I also think the encumbrance of the codec is unclear at this point
> >     > and I don't think rushing to finalize the standard would serve the
> >     > purpose of this WG. Due to the encumbrance there may still be
> changes
> >     > required which may affect the quality, and the final testing should
> >     > begin after this has been resolved.
> >
> >     We knew when we started this process that there might be
> encumbrances.
> >     We even knew that there might be unreported encumbrances that would
> >     emerge only after the codec was published as an RFC, or only after
> the
> >     code was in use by companies who would be big targets for patent
> >     lawsuits. I see no reason to delay publication until all possible
> >     encumbrances have been resolved, whatever that means (as we all know,
> >     patent claims are not resolved at the IETF, they are resolved in
> courts
> >     of law).
> >
> >
> > I think Erik was simply referring to the ongoing work already started by
> > the codec developers [whatever-it-is that is being done in response to
> > the Qualcomm declaration].
> > It sounds like you are suggesting this work should be halted, and we
> > should simply publish the current codec version???  It would be
> > interesting to know who else would agree with that proposal.
>
> I am suggesting no such thing. What I'm saying is that we could delay
> publication *forever* if people want 100% assurance that Opus is
> patent-clear. Since we know (and have always known) that we can't gain
> such assurance, I'm suggesting that the WG needs to figure out how to
> proceed.
>
> My opinion is that delaying forever would be bad.
>

I think everyone would agree.

In context, there appears to be some time to work through the formal testing
w/o significant delays in publication, since the codec isn't finished yet,
and we can potentially overlap some of the testing schedule with the
publication process time.
Make sense?


>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>