I would add that it is possible that another SDO has work-in-progress that
might overlap, so it is important to ask them. This is slightly different
from getting information on something already finished.
I agree that this particular issue is not a reason to block the formation of
the WG itself, but that the WG should be required to make the evaluation.
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Adrian Farrel
<Adrian(_dot_)Farrel(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>wrote:
Richard,
I think I agree...
It's not clear to me why SDOs need to be involved in the process of
determining whether existing codecs satisfy the requirements.
However, no-one can make the determination without requirements to make an
evaluation against.
And to be sure that all the candidates are in the melting pot, it is at
worst harmless to poll the other SDOs for their input and suggestions.
I would expect that one of the tasks of this WG is to coordinate and
document (i.e. make) the evaluation.
Cheers,
Adrian
Information on standard codecs -- including their technical and legal
aspects -- is pretty widely available. And if information about a codec
isn't generally available (e.g., if standards are being closely held), then
that codec fails to meet the requirements by definition -- there's a
requirement that it by widely implementable, which requires its
specification to be widely available.
I've only been following this discussion off and on, but I don't really
see anyone really challenging the requirements in the current draft
charter, and I don't really see anyone proposing codecs that meet those
requirements. Unless one of those two changes, it seems evident that the
requirements are not being satisfied, so we should just move on with
forming the WG.
--Richard
On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
[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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf