IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA821AD7C2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:16:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qj7DlG7MtUOK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22f.google.com (mail-vb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DA81AD845 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x11so8775361vbb.34 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:15:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=aUgaPdYAtzFiMXHuSptg/EA5uvDQpm6MnTnoFwMQkjE=; b=F0rkYX2yJdQDDb89qeyCy52a/M/ZGi8vZI9a4HU3twasCl3MOlqqgxco4TCbyUK+7k GrVdZnzQowmxizVD0xPeKdcDS1ieZDgbsbnUsOtiS6S3H9lDfvt0vE9qH6vbiGJWXaUm SFAID6nFoKl9zMmm3OZbWETRsf11RBy7Om+bXwzOV94gkJPf+Lv8EysddbKcQXVDghFS 7hNi/eRYetVgZ9uzGCYYYkcrVGQqnPxq/IhM6qZZG93xvHCUK2SawbBQCuW9bPK+wQBH tp8QDGNH2o491gfh2fgUyg4hBjjgSp+QKOFKFI4EYC417gdYBZ2QCJ7mxZS8Zbp+bsgv xQuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.0.33 with SMTP id 1mr185357vdb.81.1386004559780; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:15:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.44.226 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:15:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <12721589-7B67-49C9-99E5-CBE96BE45F11@standardstrack.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <CAKFn1SHMBG=Rwq8SNJkPz6EUD9O9P+0gTD569_5eXc7ndBpYRQ@mail.gmail.com> <529A0A4A.1040107@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMB44JYj-hkp_O72f2yg-OtBuyqN=NC3aW2PBvh7ZO-kBw@mail.gmail.com> <529BC7B1.8070205@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBJ7mktXepDckaOTBcP3wZ4e-MM7cmu_=RFJymKNr5xuA@mail.gmail.com> <12721589-7B67-49C9-99E5-CBE96BE45F11@standardstrack.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:15:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8kxED6bvrGoHCcsXCEhpa3-qQL_ZQO8xmUBV1Kt96ELjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
From: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b86f00271617204ec905555"
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:16:04 -0000

We had a videocodec bof  @IETF-85 and the WG just never got chartered:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF85.   Perhaps the ADs can
fill in the gap as to why that didn't happen as I'm not sure whether a ball
was dropped or there was a reason not to charter.

Regards,
Mary.


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>wrote:

> If this is really the issue:
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Wait for it" means "lose interoperability".  Whether that wait is
> > for the market to decide, for the IETF to find new processes, or for new
> > codecs without IPR to appear.
>
> then I would propose we charter the daughter of CODEC, focused on creating
> an IPR-cleared, IETF-standard, video codec. I thought CODEC could not be
> done, even though (or perhaps because?) I co-chaired the BOF, and I was
> pleasantly proven wrong. I have no problem learning from the past: if the
> REAL issue is IPR, the IETF now has a track record of fixing that.
>
> CODEC got its #1 task, publishing the new Opus codec, done in record time.
> It was under three years from chartering CODEC to RFC publication.
>
> I would offer RTCWEB punts on MTI, a bunch of motivated people get to work
> on Video-CODEC, and we can eventually have one codec to rule them all.
>
> BTW, if this sounds like a Solomon Solution(tm), it is. It means that
> NEITHER VP8 NOR H.264 lives on as an official, IETF-sanctioned video codec.
>
> Live by the sword, get cut in half by the sword.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email