Re: [codec] requirements #26 (new): Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Mon, 24 January 2011 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E183A69B6 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:52:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJ7aHtNUI1mh for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BF83A69B4 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1PhVJG-0006XZ-Uk; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:54:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software
To: gmaxwell@juniper.net
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:54:54 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/26#comment:1
Message-ID: <071.8b17e3b163ccf8abc1bd53f67a28f983@tools.ietf.org>
References: <062.e0143a819120da8641009b7ca8a91dcf@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 26
In-Reply-To: <062.e0143a819120da8641009b7ca8a91dcf@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: gmaxwell@juniper.net, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] requirements #26 (new): Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: codec@ietf.org
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:52:00 -0000

#26: Comparing the CODEC to other codecs...


Comment(by gmaxwell@…):

 There are thousands of codecs in existence. The requirements specify a
 number of baseline comparison points of codecs nearest the current
 application space.  Considering the significant workload required to add
 another codec in a comparison, I don't believe any omission here is
 actually an issue unless there is a clear consensus that we need to add
 additional codecs to the baseline set. I believe we can close this issue.

-- 
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/26#comment:1>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>