Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:48:18 +0200
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@xxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C143@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| That's something for the working group to figure out.
| My experience: things are typically more complicated than they initially
| look like.
Yes, of course, but the proposed charter goes to great lengths to point
out why solutions from the first and third of the three categories of
existing codecs are no good, but it more or less ignored the middle
category - then, it seemed to me, more or less demanded that a new codec
(or perhaps codecs) be developed.
That's the wrong approach, the emphasis should be on adopting something
that exists, if at all possible, and only inventing something new if
there really is no other choice.
That's why I'd prefer the charter to be revised with that in mind.
| 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.
Yes, but no-one needs that much ... (no need to delete all of that
stuff about encumbered technology, just most of it)
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf