Herve Taddei wrote: > What do you mean by "this is work we have done before"? At least it has > never been the case in IETF, if that was the case why were there all these > discussions that IETF do not have the expertise to do that work? > > There have been some activities to rubberstamp some codecs (iLBC, Speex > following some experimental tracks) but no activities related to the > standardization of new audio codecs. I find it unlikely in the extreme that a bunch of engineers will sit around in an ietf meeting and dream up a new audio codec. instead inviduals will bring existing work into a working group, where it will be accepted or not based on the charter, interest in the work etc. To pick out speex for example audio codec geeks know the history of celp, they also know the history of the development of speex by Jean-Marc Valin. that's fairly congruent with my expectations as to how this process would work on the front-end. Show up with draft text and running code is vastly prefered to starting with nothing. > > -----Original Message----- > From: codec-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:codec-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Joel Jaeggli > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:45 AM > To: Peter Saint-Andre > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Sam Hartman'; codec@xxxxxxxx; > 'Richard Shockey'; ik Fältström'; iesg@xxxxxxxx; "'Patr"@core3.amsl.com; > 'Phillip Hallam-Baker' > Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> But I don't think we can say that relevent members of the IETF community >> do *not* have the competence to work on an audio codec or that they are >> *not* willing to listen to technically competent input from any source >> when it comes to codec technologies. Indeed, the two BoFs at Stockholm >> and Hiroshima would lead, I think, to the opposite conclusion: the >> people who want to do this work appear to be competent (they have >> already developed codecs like Speex, CELT, SILK, IPMR, BV16, and BV32) >> and to be quite committed to rough consensus and running code, we have >> some precedent for doing work of this kind within the IETF (e.g., RFC >> 3951), several longtime IETF participants have experience with digital >> signal processing and similar technologies, a codec working group would >> attract new participants with relevant areas of expertise, and people at >> the BoFs appeared to be quite open to input from the IETF community or >> any interested individual. > > +1 > > This is work we've done before and there seems to be no particular > reason that it should not be done here again. > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf