It¹s unclear if ³evaluation criteria² in the first deliverable matches the first or last milestone.
Deliverables 1. A set of technical requirements and evaluation criteria. The WG may choose to pursue publication of these in an RFC if it deems that to be beneficial. ... Goals and Milestones TBD Requirements to IESG, if the WG so chooses (Informational) TBD Submit codec specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD Submit storage format specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD Testing document to IESG (Informational) My interpretation of ³evaluation criteria² is to document the methodology of iterative testing during codec development to guide the design decisions. This must come very early, probably just after requirements. I suggest to add a separate milestone for it just after requirements, or add it in the first milestone along with requirements. My interpretation of the final milestone is testing the completed codec to verify the goals were met, since it comes last. I¹m not sure how useful or necessary this is. It likely came from the opus/codec wg charter, which is also revisiting the need for this (still outstanding) milestone. I suggest to remove it until its purpose and need is clear. Mo On 4/1/15, 2:44 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: [as chair] Based on the discussions at the face-to-face meeting in Dallas, I have attached a revised charter proposal for the proposed working group. The changes between the version presented during the BOF and this one are detailed in the attached HTML file. Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, would be helpful. Thanks! /a _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
