On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> It seems to me that a group should be chartered with two sets of aims
>
> First to define a process for registering Internet audio CODECs for
> use on the Internet. This is slightly more complex than simply
> allocating an IANA code point as there are potentially parameters
> involved and these need to be exposed to the higher level protocol.
>
> When a code point is registered we need to have a document that
> defines the parameters, bit packing, packet segmentation and other
> issues, the set of applications for which it applies and the
> proprietary encumbrances that are known to affect it.
>
>
> Second, to register a set of base CODECs that have already established
> some form of support base. This is likely to mean rather more than
> simply providing a reference to an existing document that describes
> how to do everything but should not extend to performing 'research'
> into compression techniques.
What you have described is exactly what AVT WG has done for the past
decade plus. No need for a new WG to do that. (AVT does other
things, too.)
In the past, particularly when I was co-chair of AVT, there was
significant pressure from IETF leadership against IETF (and AVT in
particular) standarizing codecs out of concern that to do so would
step on ITU toes. We made a carefully considered exception for iLBC
because it had goals similar to those now being proposed. If the
concern has now dissipated, that's fine with me.
-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf