Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)

["Timothy B. Terriberry" <[e-mail]>]

Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> Of course, if there's someone else who wants to take the lead on
>> moving a charter forward (and probably having a second BoF),
>> please feel free to contact Gonzalo or me.

I'm happy to take the lead on this. I guess the big question is who else 
is willing to help out here? If we want to organize a BoF, we have 
barely a month to get a proposal in.

> standardization at MPEG which would be a good thing for VP8) and if
> they will give IETF change control. (AFAIC the answer when last
> asked was No). Ditto for the folks that did H.265. (Again AFAIC,

I agree the answer is going to be no for VP8 and VP9, as those formats 
have been frozen. It still may be possible to get Google to contribute 
techniques from those codecs that they have patented under good terms to 
a (next-)next-generation format like we would be trying to design.

> answer is No). In the meantime, if you want to actually contribute
> to the research of figuring out how to design an IPR free video
> codec, go help the Daala guys. It's an excellent project at an
> early research stage and so far is the only concrete proposal that
> has been put forward of what might form input to an IETF video
> codec WG.

Thanks for the plug. We'd definitely appreciate any help.