Hi Robert, > 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.) That's something for the working group to figure out. My experience: things are typically more complicated than they initially look like. > >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. WG charters are also written for those who have not followed the history of the work very closely. These folks typically need a bit more background information. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf