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

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:30:01 -0400

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.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   SkypeID: jdrosen
Chief Technology Strategist                    Mobile: +1 (732) 766-2496
Skype                                          SkypeIn: +1 (408) 465-0361
[email-masked]                              http://www.skype.com
[email-masked]                            http://www.jdrosen.net

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:22:06 -0700

> If you disagree, please speak up - and even better - submit an

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

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:31:07 -0400

On 10-09-24 09:22 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> be),

Considering that I have not heard anyone argue against code being the 
reference, I assume there is consensus on that. Anyone disagrees on 
that? If not, I'll add that to the draft.

> bit-exact or not (and what are the conformance points if its not
> bit-exactness),

Again, from the previous IETF meeting (logs at 
http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/codec/2010-07-26.txt) I thought most/all 
agreed with having a fixed-point reference, but not "force" 
implementations to be bit-exact with it. The current draft already 
mentions that and leaves it up to the codec draft to specify the exact 
conformance requirements.

> and characterization gating,

Well, that may be the only one that's still being debated. I think that 
can be resolved after adopting the draft.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

> before accepting the draft as a
> WG item.

> That said, I'm willing to support the adoption of the draft as WG
> On 9.24.2010 11:30 , "Jonathan Rosenberg"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:10:16 +0200

Quoting Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>:

> Considering that I have not heard anyone argue against code being  
> the reference, I assume there is consensus on that. Anyone disagrees  
> on that? If not, I'll add that to the draft.
>

I have a (weak) doubt about having code as reference.  I elaborated  
about it in a reply of mine to thread (of this WG) about format  
specification (I would give you the link to the archive, but it seems  
that it is not archived yet).  I would not repeat it here (it is a  
fairly long message),  but the bottom line is that maybe C code has  
few trapdoors that make it less than ideal to write an "ultimate  
specification" of something.  How I said, it is just a very weak  
objection.

-- 
Riccardo Bernardini
DIEGM -- University of Udine
via delle Scienze 208
33100 Udine
Tel: +39-0432-55-8271
Fax: +39-0432-55-8251

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEMEL (SErvizio di Messaging ELettronico) - CSIT -Universita' di Udine