On Dec 2, 2013 9:11 AM, "Eric Burger" <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If this is really the issue:
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Wait for it" means "lose interoperability". Whether that wait is
> > for the market to decide, for the IETF to find new processes, or for new
> > codecs without IPR to appear.
>
> then I would propose we charter the daughter of CODEC, focused on creating an IPR-cleared, IETF-standard, video codec. I thought CODEC could not be done, even though (or perhaps because?) I co-chaired the BOF, and I was pleasantly proven wrong. I have no problem learning from the past: if the REAL issue is IPR, the IETF now has a track record of fixing that.
>
> CODEC got its #1 task, publishing the new Opus codec, done in record time. It was under three years from chartering CODEC to RFC publication.
>
> I would offer RTCWEB punts on MTI, a bunch of motivated people get to work on Video-CODEC, and we can eventually have one codec to rule them all.
>
> BTW, if this sounds like a Solomon Solution(tm), it is. It means that NEITHER VP8 NOR H.264 lives on as an official, IETF-sanctioned video codec.
>
> Live by the sword, get cut in half by the sword.
+1. IPR *is* the issue and I would LOVE to see RTCWEB punt. This is the obvious IETF answer, not a vote of members
CB