[snip]
What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only then
will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if
already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet them.
I agree. Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell exactly
how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the detailed
requirements are locked down.
Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this assessment.
Other
SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond with
their
own work programs. But in the end it would be up the IETF to decide if
there is too much overlap.
Right, and this is surely easy to achieve and good project management,
anyway.
Document the requirements to a reasonable level of detail.
Circulate the requirements explicitly requesting suggestions.
Evaluate the suggestions and give reasons for rejecting existing Codecs.
Go on and develop a new Codec if required.
It does not follow that people cannot start work on a new Codec before
completion of the third step, but the WG would be premature to adopt a Codec
solution draft before having formally surveyed the landscape.
The first step has to be done anyway, and I don't see that it can be
considered as slowing down the development of a solution since it is
impossible to build a solution without knowing the requirements. The second
step might add a few weeks to the cycle. The third step, if we are to
believe the comments in this thread, will not take long.
So why does anyone object to such a process?
As to whether this sequence of steps should be codified in the charter, my
experience is that if you don't write down a process, it is very hard to get
interoperable implementations.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf