Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20091223171501.7BAE33A697D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Given ...
| There exist codecs that can be widely implemented and easily
| distributed, but that are not standardized through any SDO; according to
| reports, this lack of standardization and clear change control has
| hindered adoption of such codecs in interactive Internet applications.
(quoted from the proposed charter) it seems to me that the primary
goal of this (proposed) WG should be to pick one (or perhaps more)
of those, and standardise it (ie: document it). As long as you're
not infringing anyone's IP by doing that, the problem looks solved,
without the need to invent yet another... (it doesn't matter if the
authors of the codec go and change it, that changed version would not
be the IETF standard version, just the one in he RFC - until a revised
RFC is published, of course.)
kre
ps: the proposed charter goes on for way too long about why encumbered
technology isn't the right solution, if at all possible - most of that
is not (or should not be) needed here. It isn't wrong, just unnecessary.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf