From erik.norvell@ericsson.com Thu May 5 08:05:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE6DE0773 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsMZAB7qQEZr for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B324EE0728 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 08:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bd5ae000002ba3-e3-4dc2bcbe41d9 Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 78.1C.11171.EBCB2CD4; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.98]) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.87]) with mapi; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:34 +0200 From: Erik Norvell To: Paul Coverdale , 'Cullen Jennings' , "codec@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:05:34 +0200 Thread-Topic: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 Thread-Index: AcwEYWiXX/ma3rrrSlmJgI6tvUBxzABb5e2gAVk1WxA= Message-ID: <027A93CE4A670242BD91A44E37105AEF17B6C30EDB@ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Codec WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 15:05:37 -0000 Hi, I agree with Paul here, setting the requirement to "no worse than" for RF c= odec references would be setting the bar too low. Now it looks like the cod= ec is not required to be better than any existing RF codec. The section on complexity requirements now specifies a number in terms of p= ercentage of CPU power. However, it is still unclear to me how this require= ment would be measured. Best regards, Erik=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of Paul Coverdale > Sent: den 29 april 2011 00:49 > To: 'Cullen Jennings'; codec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 >=20 > Hi Cullen, >=20 > I don't recall the discussion on this point, but it seems=20 > that in section 5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no=20 > worse than" the reference codecs, whereas in the previous=20 > version it was "better than". I suggest that we revert to=20 > "better than", otherwise what have we achieved=20 > performance-wise with the new codec? >=20 > Regards, >=20 > ...Paul >=20 >=20 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf=20 > >Of Cullen Jennings > >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:29 PM > >To: codec@ietf.org > >Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg > >Subject: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 > > > > > >The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the=20 > last IETF=20 > >have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of=20 > which were a=20 > >consequence of the previous working group last call for this=20 > document. > >Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion=20 > centered on=20 > >requirements for codec comparison, and the document update=20 > on April 13=20 > >includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly=20 > evaluate=20 > >consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of=20 > >this draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any=20 > changes are=20 > >needed before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please=20 > propose the new=20 > >text you would like in the draft to the list before May 10=20 > along with=20 > >the reason you think the text should be changed. > > > >Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test=20 > plan - that=20 > >is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that. > > > >Jonathan & Cullen > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >codec mailing list > >codec@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec >=20 > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > = From fluffy@cisco.com Wed May 18 20:33:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A3AE06C8 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CUPvLxclz7H for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC391E0696 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 20:33:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=3342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1305776018; x=1306985618; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3R+SSEPkI3oAWla2qM/t4H9II1KAtLSsrw53qmGVw/A=; b=ljsjrFzRdsjf1c15ag1spDJD4hLO09hGSf/Zm5fIOt8enTIwLqTfbNQO KdsFh6yhxpAQn5zzPjYT94N0jR/FZUKWmIL9z9WaBhyzBxmAj0F09dfTI mfySL38FyrHgjFJFjkrUsrDJoODsvhVhFbtwh4ab5+LQ39Vs3IBodR8KU E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,235,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="450491905" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2011 03:33:38 +0000 Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4J3XbEq016515; Thu, 19 May 2011 03:33:37 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Cullen Jennings In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 21:33:36 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: codec@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Codec WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 03:33:39 -0000 I have reviewed the WGLC comments. Given all the people that commented = supported revering to the original "better than" text, I am declaring = there is currently consensus for Paul's suggested changed of=20 Paul Coverdale commented that: > in section > 5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no worse than" the = reference > codecs, whereas in the previous version it was "better than". I = suggest > that we revert to "better than", otherwise what have we achieved > performance-wise with the new codec? To address Erik's comment on how to measure, I'm not sure we need to = cover this in the draft. Most performance monitoring tools would allow = some analysis of percentage of time being used by the codec - for = example gperf. I realize that how the measurements are done, and how the = codec was optimized, will result in variations but as long as the = results are not close to the edge of the requirement, it doubt it will = be contentious of if the codec meets the requirement or not. If the = editors can add some simple text to address this issues, I'd be happy to = see that change but given the comments, I believe we have rough = consensus to progress the draft without addressing this issue if Erik = and the editors can not figure out some simple text to address his = comment. =20 Once the editors have submitted an updated draft, Jonathan and I will = start the AD write up and send the draft to the AD to request = publication. Just as FYI for folks that have not done this before, I'll give the = abbreviated list of what happens after that. The process can vary but = the typical process for a draft like this goes: 1) the AD typically does some review and check they are OK with the = draft - that may result in some updates.=20 2) Then the AD sends it out for a two week IETF Last Call which may = result in changes=20 3) Then the draft gets put forward for approval by the whole IESG 4) Various IESG member may have comments of discusses on it that need to = be resolved and could result in changes to the draft 5) after approval the RFC editor creates the RFC and will make changes 6) the authors get a final chance to catch any mistakes 7) it gets published as an RFC Thanks, Cullen On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >=20 > The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the last IETF = have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03, all of which were a = consequence of the previous working group last call for this document. = Since then, there has been a good deal of list discussion centered on = requirements for codec comparison, and the document update on April 13 = includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly evaluate = consensus on this, we would like to start a second two week WGLC of this = draft. Please review the draft and if you believe any changes are needed = before this is ready to sent to the IESG, please propose the new text = you would like in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the = reason you think the text should be changed.=20 >=20 > Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test plan - = that is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that. >=20 > Jonathan & Cullen >=20 >=20 From erik.norvell@ericsson.com Thu May 19 02:20:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8445FE078C for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fOgTQuiM5UJ7 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74948E078A for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:20:39 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c17ae00000262e-19-4dd4e0e5d512 Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 17.FD.09774.5E0E4DD4; Thu, 19 May 2011 11:20:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.98]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Thu, 19 May 2011 11:20:37 +0200 From: Erik Norvell To: Cullen Jennings , "codec@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:20:37 +0200 Thread-Topic: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 Thread-Index: AcwV1Y6fMs8VZTlHRkeQkImi2xGQkwAL3APw Message-ID: <027A93CE4A670242BD91A44E37105AEF17B6D4CB3B@ESESSCMS0351.eemea.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Codec WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:20:43 -0000 Hi Cullen, Thank you for addressing our concerns.=20 When it comes to the complexity I am fine if the measurement method is not = covered in this document, as long as the method is excplained somewhere and= that ambiguities are resolved. For instance, if the complexity is defined = as percentage load of a CPU, how it that computed for a multi-core CPU? Is = it percentage per core? Are we measuring peak or average load? Will we spec= ify a platform for this measurement? Since there are many operating modes, = which mode should be used for measurements and will we include frame errors= ? Best, Erik=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings > Sent: den 19 maj 2011 05:34 > To: codec@ietf.org > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg > Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03 >=20 >=20 > I have reviewed the WGLC comments. Given all the people that=20 > commented supported revering to the original "better than"=20 > text, I am declaring there is currently consensus for Paul's=20 > suggested changed of=20 >=20 > Paul Coverdale commented that: >=20 > > in section > > 5.2, the codec quality requirement is now "no worse than" the=20 > > reference codecs, whereas in the previous version it was "better=20 > > than". I suggest that we revert to "better than", otherwise=20 > what have=20 > > we achieved performance-wise with the new codec? >=20 > To address Erik's comment on how to measure, I'm not sure we=20 > need to cover this in the draft. Most performance monitoring=20 > tools would allow some analysis of percentage of time being=20 > used by the codec - for example gperf. I realize that how the=20 > measurements are done, and how the codec was optimized, will=20 > result in variations but as long as the results are not close=20 > to the edge of the requirement, it doubt it will be=20 > contentious of if the codec meets the requirement or not. If=20 > the editors can add some simple text to address this issues,=20 > I'd be happy to see that change but given the comments, I=20 > believe we have rough consensus to progress the draft without=20 > addressing this issue if Erik and the editors can not figure=20 > out some simple text to address his comment. =20 >=20 > Once the editors have submitted an updated draft, Jonathan=20 > and I will start the AD write up and send the draft to the AD=20 > to request publication. >=20 > Just as FYI for folks that have not done this before, I'll=20 > give the abbreviated list of what happens after that. The=20 > process can vary but the typical process for a draft like this goes: > 1) the AD typically does some review and check they are OK=20 > with the draft - that may result in some updates.=20 > 2) Then the AD sends it out for a two week IETF Last Call=20 > which may result in changes > 3) Then the draft gets put forward for approval by the whole IESG > 4) Various IESG member may have comments of discusses on it=20 > that need to be resolved and could result in changes to the draft > 5) after approval the RFC editor creates the RFC and will make changes > 6) the authors get a final chance to catch any mistakes > 7) it gets published as an RFC >=20 > Thanks, Cullen >=20 > On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > The chairs believe the bulk of the changes agreed to at the=20 > last IETF have been made to draft-ietf-codec-requirements-03,=20 > all of which were a consequence of the previous working group=20 > last call for this document. Since then, there has been a=20 > good deal of list discussion centered on requirements for=20 > codec comparison, and the document update on April 13=20 > includes a proposal for such comparison. In order to clearly=20 > evaluate consensus on this, we would like to start a second=20 > two week WGLC of this draft. Please review the draft and if=20 > you believe any changes are needed before this is ready to=20 > sent to the IESG, please propose the new text you would like=20 > in the draft to the list before May 10 along with the reason=20 > you think the text should be changed.=20 > >=20 > > Also note that this document does NOT cover the actual test=20 > plan - that is out of scope. Here, we only consider requirements that. > >=20 > > Jonathan & Cullen > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > = From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 19 10:40:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E327E073E; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:40:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EzFF5We7FkdE; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995ACE0658; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:40:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.54 Message-ID: <20110519174050.23959.32548.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:40:50 -0700 Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Codec WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:40:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working= Group of the IETF. Title : Codec Requirements Author(s) : Jean-Marc Valin Koen Vos Filename : draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2011-05-19 This document provides specific requirements for an Internet audio codec. These requirements address quality, sampling rate, bit-rate, and packet loss robustness, as well as other desirable properties. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04.txt