Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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. +1 This is work we've done before and there seems to be no particular reason that it should not be done here again. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf