This is about to start another time around the same circle, but if the arguments need to be restated, I'll take a turn on this lap. > We fully share the points 1) and 2) stated in the e-mail below from > Cullen since implementing and deploying a new codec in networks > (gateways, service plate-forms, mediaservers...) and in terminals > represents high costs for service providers, manufacturers and chipset > providers in terms of development, deployment and testing with risks > to create bugs and problems affecting customers. Furthermore, this > multiplies the problems of interoperability with already deployed > codecs and the transcoding needs to be addressed with related costs > (gateways) and quality degradations. Although it is something of an aside, I find it difficult to believe that this would ever be seriously considered within the ITU as a reason why a clearly better codec should not be implemented and offered for sale*[1]. I also find it somewhat difficult to believe, despite the real costs of adding another row/column to full-matrix transcode, that commercial providers would become very cross at the idea of a higher performance standardized codec for free. > Therefore, the 3 stages mentionned are essential to be run sequentially: > "(1) get consensus on the requirements, (2) see if an existing codec > meets the requirements, and (3) specify a new codec only if none are > found in stage 2. Initially the WG would be chartered for (1) and when > that was done it would be re-charted for (2) and so on. " Dibs on the first donut at the meeting planning meeting pre-meeting! To address the points: 1) yes, we need a consensus on requirements. We can synthesize requirements as a low-bar aggregation of the performance numbers of already-demonstrated best of breed. At least, that's a decent enough empirical strategy. We know what the current commercial codecs can do, we know what the available free codecs can do that will be inputs to this process and we know that there's demand for unencumbered deployment. The requirements doc, as screenwriters might say, "writes itself" (the union of what we can do and what the world needs). It does need to be done of course, and screenwriters can't live without thoughful editors, but what part of this is actually controversial? 2) we are here because the lack of a suitable standardized codec has already been demonstrated. The driving impetus behind the proposal is only partly technical. If, for example, the ITU wanted to view this as an insurrection to be crushed*[2], it could do so by offering suitable current-generation codecs without licensing strings, but we believe this isn't possible and it's not even fair to offer as a straw-man. Further, we believe that it is also not possible to start fresh and arrive at a royalty-free result solely within the ITU or MPEG or elsewhere as there are no examples of such. That said, collaboration is highly desirable. I don't presume to posess technical insight superior to the ITU. However, you suggest: > Once the first requirement establishment stage completed, the working group > will then communicate detailed description > of the requirements and goals to other SDOs including the > ITU-T, 3GPP, and MPEG to jointly analyse and determine if existing > standardized codecs meet the requirements or can be efficiently adapted > to meet them. This work will constitute a second stage that will be > discussed and agreed with the relevant SDOs and the WG Charter will be > updated accordingly ...which effectivly amounts to first stopping dead, and then ceding large chunks of the decision making process to outside groups with no previously demonstrated interest in our goals. This doesn't make much sense. 'Collaboration with the IETF' becomes a joint-venture-by-committee at best. Though it is important to be in active communication with other SDOs, the idea of proceeding within the IETF is because IETF participants have expressed interest where other SDOs haven't. I propose that we do not wait for any and all passengers to meander to the station in their good time; those who show up before the train leaves according to schedule are welcome to get on board*[3]. There will be multiple stations along the route, of course. 3) Several free codecs have been demonstrated that fufill basic operating requirements. However, we have a unique opportunity to leverage the strengths of several members of the field into an even stronger contender. As stated multiple times in this process, we are not interested in rubber stamping. I would consider it a wasted opportunity. We have the rare spectacle of multiple groups of experts willing to work together to produce a new, state-of the art audio codec (or codecs) with no royalty or licensing strings attached at the same time there is demand for exactly this! There is demand, there is interest, there is motivation. Monty Xiph.Org [1] one would expect the result to be a commercial product [2] "You are a Rebel and a Traitor! Take her away!" I always thought it was better in David Prowse's own voice honestly. [3] Please mind the doors. Another train will doubtless be along presently. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf