We had a videocodec bof @IETF-85 and the WG just never got chartered: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BofIETF85. Perhaps the ADs can fill in the gap as to why that didn't happen as I'm not sure whether a ball was dropped or there was a reason not to charter.
Regards,
Mary.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:10 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.