Hi Robert,
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<20091223171501(_dot_)7BAE33A697D(_at_)core3(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com>
Given ...
| There exist codecs that can be widely implemented and easily
| distributed, but that are not standardized through any
SDO; according to
| reports, this lack of standardization and clear change control has
| hindered adoption of such codecs in interactive Internet
applications.
(quoted from the proposed charter) it seems to me that the
primary goal of this (proposed) WG should be to pick one (or
perhaps more)
of those, and standardise it (ie: document it). As long as you're
not infringing anyone's IP by doing that, the problem looks
solved, without the need to invent yet another... (it doesn't
matter if the authors of the codec go and change it, that
changed version would not be the IETF standard version, just
the one in he RFC - until a revised RFC is published, of course.)
That's something for the working group to figure out.
My experience: things are typically more complicated than they initially
look like.
kre
ps: the proposed charter goes on for way too long about why
encumbered technology isn't the right solution, if at all
possible - most of that
is not (or should not be) needed here. It isn't wrong, just
unnecessary.
WG charters are also written for those who have not followed the history
of the work very closely. These folks typically need a bit more
background information.
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf