IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [video-codec] Charter issues from BoF

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 15 January 2013 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C0921F8798 for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gRUmGmC2RU3f for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D05C21F8742 for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:29:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1189; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1358224145; x=1359433745; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=S7/7DGyDyB5CODKTfhIHt3B9E0rsSap3ygRaRkC2Vtw=; b=O2v0k0wvQ39ZaIKeiwyeLZ/kNUtJsksZAY6n6If0a/hSLiRwk1Fg/U0n VEbHE+MU7p0SdG+12AMzJP34ahHOqF/Fl5AltYyW5JbL+2KYn4znXIH8N wn+0cpzO0ewt4XbOoklNlS+7ATGsnnKYCKzK0/QphuzsUbJWCftWTc+hg I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocFAP/Z9FCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEujuDOBZzgh8BAQQ6NAsQAgEIIhQQMiUCBA4FCIgRqASOJoxrg2JhA6ZUgmgNgiQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,469,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="162457258"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2013 04:29:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0F4T5XX014332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:29:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.197]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:29:04 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Charter issues from BoF
Thread-Index: AQHN8tjZZyWcHroNpUikCY6xOF7gzw==
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:29:04 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11337D2ED@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20121106112625.2btpoxrylcgg8w4c@kizuka.merseine.nu>
In-Reply-To: <20121106112625.2btpoxrylcgg8w4c@kizuka.merseine.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7B323389635A104EB6B9CC7A5477E434@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<video-codec@ietf.org>" <video-codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Charter issues from BoF
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:29:06 -0000

On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:

>> 
>> 8. Be clear if the WG is creating new technology or selecting existing
>> technology.
> 
> Given the existing technology I'm aware of, I have no problem saying we're going to be creating something new here. That might preclude the possibility of the JCTVC offering the world HEVC royalty-free via the IETF, but that proposition seems so vanishingly unlikely that it won't keep me up at night.

What I really meant is are we going to more or less take VP.next from google or are we going to try and do work on the mailing list to create the technology. Note I could care less about where the codec came from, I only care about outcome. The reason I raise this is that if half the people think we are doing one thing and the other half thinks we are doing the other, it's a long slow road to get to consensus. I prefer bring small incremental bits of technology to the WG and we get something working together that is better than what would have happened otherwise but I can easily live with we test VP.next and if it is good enough, we publish it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email