Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, stephen botzko
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I kind of like the joint body idea.
>
> One reason is that it brings the ITU codec characterization/testing
> strengths into the process.
>
> Though it might take a little longer to get going, it could save a lot of
> time at the end (IMHO).

Is there indication that desire exists within the ITU to formalize a
completely unencumbered codec?  There is no doubt that the ITU has
vast expertise and resources directly relevant to what we're doing.

We have seen there is that interest in MPEG, but one can understand it
hasn't happened because the MPEG process is stacked against it.  That
stacking would appear to exist in the ITU as well.  Is there a
parallel situation where there's always been strong unencumbered
baseline interest within the ITU that simply isn't obvious from the
outside? Such interest would seem to be a requirement for a successful
joint body.

If that interest exists within the ITU and those Open/Free proponents
sense an opportunity to ger 'er done by cooperating with the IETF...
well. That's an entirely different matter and cause for optimism.  Is
it the case?  I apologize for my lack of knowledge on this matter.

Monty
Xiph.Org