Sorry for the slow response. Yes, I believe the proposal sounds reasonable. Ingemar > -----Original Message----- > From: Sally Floyd [mailto:sallyfloyd@xxxxxxx] > Sent: den 13 september 2007 16:28 > To: Ingemar Johansson S > Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx; gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Interest in WG adopting the I-Ds on > ccid3-drops & ccid-4? > > Ingemar - > > > I can only comment on the CCID-4 draft and I support that > it becomes a > > working group item esp. as it has potential to becoem > useful for VoIP. > > In a previous email to this group I gave an elaborate > explanation of > > the properties of modern speech/audio codecs and possibly I can > > contribute with text in this direction and how CCID-4 can address > > these issues as good as possible. > > CCID-4 is a fairly straightforward discussion of how TFRC-SP > is implemented in DCCP, so I don't think that a general > discussion of modern codecs goes in CCID-4. > > My inclination would be for it to go in a separate > informational RFC with a discussion of issues with CCID-4 in > actual use. It also makes sense to me that a "deployment > issues" document would have a different time scale than the > current CCID-4 specification document. > The CCID-4 specification document needs to be done first, so > that people can begin experimenting with CCID-4. Then a > "deployment issues" RFC could progress more slowly, along > with the actual use of CCID-4. > > Does that sound reasonable? > > - Sally > http://www.icir.org/floyd/ > > (On vacation in northern Minnesota.) > >
