There is a very high cost to service providers every time a new codec
is introduced operationally, at the very least in the form of
full-mesh transcoding. Thus, new codecs should not be developed
lightly.
As I think we can all agree, the world already has enough encumbered
codecs, and there's no point in adding yet another.
However, the draft charter states:
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not
explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies;
such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus of
the working group.
I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered
status of any output of this group. However, I would like this statement to
be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a codec if it is strongly
believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, or freely
licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any.
I would also very much prefer that the WG be chartered at this point to only
work on requirements and liaise them to other SDOs; and only if it is
determined
by the WG that the resulting requirements cannot be met by an existing codec,
should the WG be chartered for actual new codec development.
Thanks,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf