IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [video-codec] Proposed charter

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 04 November 2012 23:47 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 5971F21F87F7 for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 iMM3I4OvNhoC for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78A621F8707 for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:47:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=737; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352072858; x=1353282458; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=k4rcJ/AcpZCLwM3/nVF2Ibgj+ouTGi+gNuET8eAr3xM=; b=Lc/DYLZClao3JYVxfeeOtMYJTlGax73FMLLsZj6cHF/14oHiY7QEsnuc KcrBsQT4BYiTQrBEzsczIVsJA/15JQALonGTeUiWYWLVaKNn6dC2I3twD 10t0mR/ZaVJ/HhpitMANrkV6e+slvWnOJVbBU2OUoHtOK2U9UeiyQOzVB I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlMFAHr9llCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABDhVC9aoEIgh4BAQEDARIBJ0QLAgEIIhQQMiUCBBMIGodiBplQnwmMAYVbYQOkVIFrgm+CGQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,712,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="135682104"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2012 23:47:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA4NlcV1008066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:47:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.217]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 17:47:38 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "<video-codec@ietf.org>" <video-codec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Proposed charter
Thread-Index: AQHNuubFGywIucR2FESNOo0Is1Bzbg==
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:47:37 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1118ADE3B@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <5032B6F5.7030402@xiph.org>
In-Reply-To: <5032B6F5.7030402@xiph.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.211]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19338.004
x-tm-as-result: No--31.290200-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E2FC14DAB0704B419E08C001C4927139@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed charter
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: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:47:39 -0000

On Aug 20, 2012, at 18:15 , Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:

> 3. Specification of a codec that meets the agreed-upon requirements, in
> the form of an Internet-Draft that defines the codec algorithm along
> with source code for a reference implementation. The text description
> of the codec shall describe the mandatory, recommended, and optional
> portions of the encoder and decoder. It is envisioned that this dappropriateocument
> shall be a Proposed Standard document.

So of course I like the ice of an open source reference implementations, but is there any reasons it needs to be in this RFC? I think that will lead to lots of problems of how to update the reference implementation.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email