The charter of SG16 (and its "questions" - like WGs in the IETF) is handled somewhat differently than the IETF charter process. The entire ITU-T charter and organization is re-approved every study period (3 years), and the organization and leadership is kept for the entire period. Each question has its own focus, specified in the charter. This does not include specific work items. When new work is proposed, first the question agrees to add them to its work program. Then the work program is approved by the working party (one layer up), and finally the full study group (in a plenary session). This happens fairly rapidly (within the same meeting session).
The ITU-T questions that do audio codecs first identify the application need (reasonably detailed requirements) for the proposed codec, and makes sure it does not duplicate ITU-T previous work (and other work the members know about). If there is agreement to proceed, the codec is added to the ITU-T work program. The approved work program is published, and usually sent to other interested SDOs in liason statements.
Later on, the group works out even more specific requirements (called "terms of reference") and develops a test plan for candidates. Often there are two batteries of tests - a "lower bar" for qualifying reasonable candidates, and a "higher bar" for choosing between the candidates that pass the first test.
Then it calls for proposals, accepts candidates, and starts the selection process and characterization/testing.
Stephen Botzko
Polycom
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Actually, maybe we can look at how other SDOs are handling this issue.
Considering that ITU-T, 3GPP/3GPP2 and (to a lesser extent) MPEG all
standardise codecs in the same space, how do these SDOs coordinate? For
example, does the ITU-T SG16 have some text in it's "charter" that says "we
will communicate the requirements to 3GPP and other SDOs to see if they
have codecs that fill these requirements"? Can someone more familiar than I
am with the ITU-T/3GPPx/MPEG/... explain how this issue is being handled?
Jean-Marc
Adrian Farrel wrote:
> _______________________________________________> Richard,
>
> I think I agree...
>
>> It's not clear to me why SDOs need to be involved in the process of
>> determining whether existing codecs satisfy the requirements.
>
> However, no-one can make the determination without requirements to make an
> evaluation against.
>
> And to be sure that all the candidates are in the melting pot, it is at
> worst harmless to poll the other SDOs for their input and suggestions.
>
> I would expect that one of the tasks of this WG is to coordinate and
> document (i.e. make) the evaluation.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>> Information on standard codecs -- including their technical and legal
>> aspects -- is pretty widely available. And if information about a codec
>> isn't generally available (e.g., if standards are being closely held),
>> then that codec fails to meet the requirements by definition --
>> there's a
>> requirement that it by widely implementable, which requires its
>> specification to be widely available.
>>
>> I've only been following this discussion off and on, but I don't really
>> see anyone really challenging the requirements in the current draft
>> charter, and I don't really see anyone proposing codecs that meet those
>> requirements. Unless one of those two changes, it seems evident that the
>> requirements are not being satisfied, so we should just move on with
>> forming the WG.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> What I try to say is that first the requirements must be set, only
>>>>> then
>>>>> will it be possible for representatives of other SDOs to determine if
>>>>> already standarddized codecs (or codecs under standardization) meet
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Obviously no one (inside or outside the IETF) can tell
>>>> exactly
>>>> how existing codecs in other SDOs relate to this work until the
>>>> detailed
>>>> requirements are locked down.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I think the burden is mostly on CODEC to make this assessment.
>>>> Other
>>>> SDOs may offer their views in liason statements, and can respond with
>>>> their
>>>> own work programs. But in the end it would be up the IETF to
>>>> decide if
>>>> there is too much overlap.
>>>
>>> Right, and this is surely easy to achieve and good project management,
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Document the requirements to a reasonable level of detail.
>>> Circulate the requirements explicitly requesting suggestions.
>>> Evaluate the suggestions and give reasons for rejecting existing
>>> Codecs.
>>> Go on and develop a new Codec if required.
>>>
>>> It does not follow that people cannot start work on a new Codec before
>>> completion of the third step, but the WG would be premature to adopt a
>>> Codec solution draft before having formally surveyed the landscape.
>>>
>>> The first step has to be done anyway, and I don't see that it can be
>>> considered as slowing down the development of a solution since it is
>>> impossible to build a solution without knowing the requirements. The
>>> second step might add a few weeks to the cycle. The third step, if we
>>> are to believe the comments in this thread, will not take long.
>>>
>>> So why does anyone object to such a process?
>>>
>>> As to whether this sequence of steps should be codified in the charter,
>>> my experience is that if you don't write down a process, it is very
>>> hard
>>> to get interoperable implementations.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>
> codec mailing list
> codec@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf