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(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com>wrote:
If this is really the issue:
On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
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.