From fluffy@cisco.com Mon Jan 9 11:53:13 2012 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 25A0D21F8532 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:53:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.282 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.708, BAYES_20=-0.74, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FPkCA953XmSD for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D7E21F8472 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:53:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=9977; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326138792; x=1327348392; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=iWyyfXEiueXG16f6IIICrerF+JXOY74RRaSCu7rW7dg=; b=jxzNdDxvuUtO/P0MbFIaQQbJxscvKmBi02DJ6KDm85TWSdy/TccV+XON riRuRIj6Jxyaoee5hQDahQUKN1Sxssl7rdoJTk9qYHNRM6iAquHopTESI bArw5l0FGzc2yf6y4TU294x+Bml7w3TFG9XQypzFbqFBsDPwAmycE1DZY E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwEAD1FC0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDrFOBBYILASc1gXYHnlGBJwGeTosuYwSIOYxQhVGNCA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,481,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24420011" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2012 19:53:11 +0000 Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q09JrBuZ031632 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:53:11 GMT From: Cullen Jennings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:53:11 -0700 Message-Id: To: codec@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [codec] notes from IETF 82 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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:53:13 -0000 Codec Agenda - Ver 3 Dan - jabber watcher Jean - note taker jdr - participating remotely. Matthew Coffman - helping=20 Note well.=20 Bashing = ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. Liaisons (Chairs - 15 min) Cullen Liason documents available, treating their comments as LC comments.=20 No questions ??? - study group 16 meets next week or week after.=20 =3D=3D> ACTION: Any responses to Study group 16 should be sent by early = next week.=20 JDR - has already sent comments.=20 = ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Listening results (Christian - 15 min)=20 draft-ietf-codec-results-00 Paul Coverdale - If there are any results for Opus ??? AMR is the lowest = score A few changes have been made to silk stereo that may improve = performance. Jean Marc - the rates for the stereo test wwere lower than usual = testing, which explains the quality. Paul C. - Did opus have different delays, were they consistent.=20 Jean Marc - ??? the delay in AMRWB+ is ???=20 Opus was running at 20ms. Cullen, to the group - Comments?=20 Group silent. =20 =3D=3D> DECISION: Cullen - Take the following issues to the list: Shall we run objective tests on speech and audio quality as well as = runtime and memory consumption Merging with draft-hoene-quality-01 to include some more textural = description.s Christian says ok. = ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Opus: (Jean-Marc - as long as it takes) Discuss any WGLC comments draft-ietf-codec-opus-10 Jean-Marc covered updates to the draft. Time stetching - added pointers to algorithms.=20 =3D=3D Compliance =3D=3D Eric Norvell - the bitstream is still normative even in an informational = draft Jean-Marc - ??=20 Stephan Wegner - I don't care if the decoder source file or the human = readable text is normative. Both work. There is a conformance spec that = includes tools and description of an algorithm, how to use the tools, = and what do to with the results.=20 Jean-Narc - it's in the draft. Stephan - We agree, but has to be defined here. (something about = lawyers) Jean-Marc - the open question - How sensitive is the tool? Stephan - pick any metric, but don't leave it open. ?? - I care how sensitive it is. The fix and floating point both passed, = got green light. There will exist decoders that sound equally good but = won't pass.=20 Jean-Marc - It would be unlikely for that to happen. Stephan - If decoder implementors run the tests and they are = red-lighted, then they will tweak their source code.=20 Jean-Marc - do we want to make more optimal encoders by setting the bar = lower?=20 ?? - ?? Beyond legal, ?? Stephan - if someone comes up with the new decoder, they can write a = draft and we can get ipr declarations.=20 Christian Hoene - make the test lest strict and use peak. Jean-Marc - can't use peak. Can't use proprietary standard as compliance = tool.=20 Eric Norvell - if the test doesn't allow imperceptible differences, then = the test is too tight.=20 Jean-Marc - who in the room cares? Cullen - There's legal issues - need a red/green light. As for the other = error condition, would it be better to allow things that are compliant = but sound like crap (broad tolerance). Or narrow - noncompliance, but = sounds fine.=20 Jean-Marc - I have another option. Float and Fixed point pass the test - = put the bar there - we catch errors that are perceptable. Allow errors = for float to fixed point conversions.=20 Schwarz - from proposed to standard. can we relax the standard if it's = too tight in practice? J-M - yes. Stephan - It's acceptable to say you are compliant when you pass either = the fixed or float or pay lots of money that says you're compliant. So = long as there's an open source choice, that's ok.=20 Cullen - Anyone have an analyzer and are willing to ? Christian - I can add conformance test for peak witin a few weeks. = Having one test vector for fixed and float make sense.=20 J-M - ?? we allow a range around ?? (something about fixed and float)=20 Eric - it doesn't need to be a quality test. Some implementation degrade = the quality.=20 Cullen - we all agree there has to be a clean test. Stephan - except for ?? patent, it only covers the decoder.=20 J-M - The Skype patent covers the decoder.=20 Christian says to Eric - I do not agree. Eric - which part?=20 ?? - I support a looser test for the decoder.=20 Cullen - there are three issues: - Should the error margin for the test be broad or narrow? - How do we do those tests? - like use peak J-M - on the second one - only unless someone writes it.=20 Cullen - lets talk about peak. Christian can define a peak-based metric.=20= J-M - don't know if its feasable. Ben Schwarz - can the test boundary be moved after the proposed standard = is released? can we change the conformance test?=20 Cullen - We would need new IPR statements. J-M - the IPR statements cover future changes.=20 Stephan - IPR comes into picture if one of these 4 companies sue each = other. I'm pretty sure we are fine.=20 Cullen - I was wrong previously. We can do this.=20 Christian - peak has be used for years. The current tool hasn't been = tested by third parties.=20 J-M - The tool was written for the codec. =20 Stephan - this is marketing. If a company wants to trust a testing tool = that is more well known than what we came up with. That's their choice.=20= Gregory Maxwell - The tool was tweaked to fail real bugs. Don't know = about peak.=20 J-M - we need to run peak with real data.=20 Eric - The tool should be used for verifying conformance, not catching = bugs.=20 ?? - maybe we need two tools - one is for finding bugs, one tells you if = your implementation is conformant. Why use a tool that excludes good = sounding implementations? Cullen - We are not writing tools to find bugs.=20 J-M - We need to experiment. Cullen - No, we don't. What are we trying do here? Tools for checking = IPR. Anyone proposing super narrow for IPR check? Ben Schwarz - Super narrow.=20 Matthew Coffman describes an Apple II - 6502 cassette port = implementation. 7 out of 10 words is a reasonable pass. =20 Ben Schwarz - optimize for known objective function. A too narrow test = can always be broadened, but not vice versa.=20 Stephan - I'm in favor of wider tests. Diffuses the risks of = implementation.=20 J-M - if you pass the test vectors, you pass the test. Ben Schwarz - How am I supposed to optimize the encoder if all decoders = sound different?=20 Stephan - This is about compliance.=20 gregory - can relax it by 1db.=20 Christian - What about one test for legal, and wider test for interop? Stephan - bad idea. If you confuse the people in this room, you will = confuse the jury. Cullen - take a hum on three options: - Wide - a broad metric, bad sounding could pass the test. - Narrow - the results were audibly the same,=20 float and fixed points still pass.=20 - Don't know/Don't care Ralph - what's the option in the current draft? J-M - Narrow Cullen - Those in favor of wide approach, hum now.=20 Group hums (2 on jabber) Cullen - Make the test very narrow, hum.=20 Group hums (7 on jabber) =3D=3D> CONCLUSION Cullen - On the list, people support narrow. In the = room, wide. Weak consensus. Take to the list.=20 J-M - I will try to find a compromise and take to the list. = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= Opus Testing=20 Tim Terriberry presenting. presentation will be on the website after the wg meeting.=20 Lennox - did you test on any platforms that didn't have 16-bit byte? Or = 9 bit bytes? ?? - no. (?there was some port tested briefly?) No further questions.=20 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= Issues found during WGLC Koen Vos presenting =3D=3D Issue 1 =3D=3D Tim - We found these issues in the second implementation=20 Tim - We've run dtmf tones to see if they are decoded correctly. =20 =3D=3D Issue 2 =3D=3D Lennox - packet loss during DTMF is worth testing.=20 Vos - I'll test packet loss during DTMF. Cullen - does anyone object to the solutions? No objections.=20 =3D=3D> ACTION: Cullen - make the changes that were presented.=20 =3D=3D Opus testing with network traces =3D=3D=20 Paul C - on packet loss, how many frames? Vos - One frame per packet=20 Paul - What if you put more frame in a packet, has a bigger impact. Is = error correction only good for one frame. Vos - Only need FEC is you lose 2 packets in a row.=20 J-M - if you pack 2 frames per packet, your burst will be shorter.=20 Cullen, to the group - any questions? None.=20 Cullen - summarizing for the minutes:=20 =3D=3D> ACTION: Update draft with WGLC comments. =3D=3D> ACTION: Get more testing info for DTMF. Paul - what about modems or hard of hearing? J-M - I would put that into test that we do after standardization. Brian Rosen - Test TTY tone when doing DTMF. It's the only tone based = signaling used by deaf folks. Modems aren't interesting for accessibly. = We have problems getting TTY through. If you can get DTMF though you can = get TTY. Cullen - do you have files? Do we send you files? Brian - I have a guy who could do it, have to ask. Christian - DTMF is required, fax and modem excluded. Gregory - assume they don't work, is that a blocker? Laughter. Stephan - I can make files with various error percentages available for = testing. However, media coding people need to sanity check them first.=20= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 9 12:35:27 2012 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 1BC8B21F861D; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:35:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HI9Sgy1P7zPW; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC5F21F85DF; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:35:14 -0800 (PST) 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: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120109203514.9026.63463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:35:14 -0800 Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:35:27 -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 : Guidelines for Development of an Audio Within the IETF Author(s) : Jean-Marc Valin Slava Borilin Koen Vos Christopher Montgomery Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen Filename : draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-01-09 This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and specifying an interactive audio codec within the IETF. These guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and intellectual property issues. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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-guidelines-07.txt From Bernhard.Feiten@telekom.de Tue Jan 10 01:38:04 2012 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 EDE5B21F86E1 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y9PuWRw4+RZA for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F4B21F86DB for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from he113415.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.81]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 10 Jan 2012 10:37:55 +0100 Received: from HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.2.61]) by HE113415.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([2002:7cd:4151::7cd:4151]) with mapi; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:37:54 +0100 From: To: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:37:35 +0100 Thread-Topic: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt Thread-Index: AczPDlh/7UMaRqOSRwW+ULII7P8dNwAbKM+Q Message-ID: References: <20120109203514.9026.63463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120109203514.9026.63463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:38:04 -0000 Dear editors, May be the title should be "Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec Within the IETF" Instead of "Guidelines for Development of an Audio Within the IETF" Best regards, Bernhard -----Original Message----- From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of i= nternet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 21:35 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt 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 : Guidelines for Development of an Audio Within the IETF Author(s) : Jean-Marc Valin Slava Borilin Koen Vos Christopher Montgomery Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen Filename : draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-01-09 This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and specifying an interactive audio codec within the IETF. These guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and intellectual property issues. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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-guidelines-07.txt _______________________________________________ codec mailing list codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 10 02:46:15 2012 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 C017921F86D0; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ArGhMKOfZD-H; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDB121F85BE; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:15 -0800 (PST) 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: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120110104615.22720.65946.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:15 -0800 Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-08.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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:46:15 -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 : Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec Within the = IETF Author(s) : Jean-Marc Valin Slava Borilin Koen Vos Christopher Montgomery Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen Filename : draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-08.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-01-10 This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and specifying an interactive audio codec within the IETF. These guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and intellectual property issues. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-08.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-guidelines-08.txt From jmvalin@mozilla.com Tue Jan 10 02:46:47 2012 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 489D521F85BE for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:47 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFDv19Q1MBdZ for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-mail03.mozilla.org (dm-mail03.mozilla.org [63.245.208.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A4421F86C1 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.15] (modemcable014.207-160-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.160.207.14]) (Authenticated sender: jvalin@mozilla.com) by dm-mail03.mozilla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEEB4AEE66; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:46:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F0C1775.5070307@mozilla.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:48:21 -0500 From: Jean-Marc Valin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernhard.Feiten@telekom.de References: <20120109203514.9026.63463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:46:47 -0000 Oops, my bad! Just submitted an update to fix that. Thanks, Jean-Marc On 10/01/12 04:37 AM, Bernhard.Feiten@telekom.de wrote: > Dear editors, > > May be the title should be > "Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec Within the IETF" > Instead of > "Guidelines for Development of an Audio Within the IETF" > > Best regards, > Bernhard > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Montag, 9. Januar 2012 21:35 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: codec@ietf.org > Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Guidelines for Development of an Audio Within the IETF > Author(s) : Jean-Marc Valin > Slava Borilin > Koen Vos > Christopher Montgomery > Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen > Filename : draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2012-01-09 > > This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and > specifying an interactive audio codec within the IETF. These > guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements > conformance, and intellectual property issues. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-07.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-guidelines-07.txt > > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jan 13 09:17:48 2012 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 AE89F21F8647; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:17:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtHXk4oZ+x8L; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EC921F864A; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:17:47 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120113171747.4359.39666.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:17:47 -0800 Cc: codec mailing list , codec chair , RFC Editor Subject: [codec] Document Action: 'Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec Within the IETF' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-08.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: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:17:48 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Guidelines for Development of an Audio Codec Within the IETF' (draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-08.txt) as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-guidelines/ Technical Summary This document provides general guidelines for work on developing and specifying a codec within the IETF. These guidelines cover the development process, evaluation, requirements conformance, and intellectual property issues. Working Group Summary The document was the subject of much discussion, as the work of the CODEC working group in general is contentious. In general the testing aspect of this has been the most contentious, due to the differing methodologies used by IETF relative to other SDOs. The IPR sections also got much discussion. These were resolved without too much difficulty and we believe the document reflects consensus of the group. Document Quality This document does not specify a protocol and therefore there are no implementations. However it has been looked at, and commented on, by numerous experts in voice coding as well as experts in IETF process. Personnel Robert Sparks is the responsible Area Director. Jonathan Rosenberg is the document shepherd. From fluffy@fluffy.im Thu Jan 26 07:52:18 2012 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 83DE721F8432 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qe7xMCs7fVoM for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0355221F85D4 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by dado14 with SMTP id o14so676481dad.31 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.238.68 with SMTP id vi4mr3780431pbc.65.1327593130644; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.4.100] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p9sm12208599pbb.9.2012.01.26.07.52.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Sender: Cullen Jennings From: Cullen Jennings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:52:07 -0700 Message-Id: To: codec@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [codec] Fwd: [ipr-announce] IPR Disclosure: Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-10 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, 26 Jan 2012 15:52:18 -0000 I wanted to point out to the WG that Microsoft has updated their IPR = disclosure with something that looks very similar to what is suggested = byhttp://www.openwebfoundation.org Cullen Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF Secretariat > Date: January 26, 2012 8:24:07 AM MST > To: jmvalin@jmvalin.ca, koen.vos@skype.net, tterriberry@mozilla.com > Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, jdrosen@jdrosen.net, codec@ietf.org, = gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, = rjsparks@nostrum.com > Subject: [ipr-announce] IPR Disclosure: Microsoft Corporation's = Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-codec-opus-10 >=20 >=20 > Dear Jean-Marc Valin, Koen Vos, Timothy Terriberry: >=20 > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled = "Definition of > the Opus Audio Codec" (draft-ietf-codec-opus) was submitted to the = IETF > Secretariat on 2012-01-25 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of = Intellectual > Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1670/). = The title > of the IPR disclosure is "Microsoft Corporation's Statement about IPR = related to > draft-ietf-codec-opus-10.""); >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ipr-announce mailing list > ipr-announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-announce