On 1/5/10 11:10 AM, Roni Even wrote: > Hi, > I do not think that the IETF should accept any work because people want to > do it, if this is the case a group of people can come and ask to start > working on any idea they have that has some relation to the Internet. IETF > should accept work that is in scope for of the IETF and for which there is > enough knowledge to evaluate the work by the participants. Statements like this puzzle me. What is "the IETF" if not the people who show up at our meetings, post to our mailing lists, and seek to work in good faith within our organizational and legal framework for the benefit of the Internet? In the case of the proposed Codec WG we seem to have a group of technically competent volunteers who want to "make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet" <http://www.ietf.org/about/mission.html> ... These volunteers seem to be part of the "large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet" <http://www.ietf.org/about/> ... Yes, it is true that "the issues on which the IETF produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to technically competent input from any source" <http://www.ietf.org/about/mission.html> ... But I don't think we can say that relevent members of the IETF community do *not* have the competence to work on an audio codec or that they are *not* willing to listen to technically competent input from any source when it comes to codec technologies. Indeed, the two BoFs at Stockholm and Hiroshima would lead, I think, to the opposite conclusion: the people who want to do this work appear to be competent (they have already developed codecs like Speex, CELT, SILK, IPMR, BV16, and BV32) and to be quite committed to rough consensus and running code, we have some precedent for doing work of this kind within the IETF (e.g., RFC 3951), several longtime IETF participants have experience with digital signal processing and similar technologies, a codec working group would attract new participants with relevant areas of expertise, and people at the BoFs appeared to be quite open to input from the IETF community or any interested individual. I agreed to co-chair the BoF in Hiroshima to give these folks a chance to present their case for working within the Internet Standards Process, and I think that case is strong. Yes, they might fail to achieve their goals or to solve the problems they set out to solve, but that is true of any WG for any number of reasons. We won't know unless we try, and I see no reason to prevent them from trying. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf