On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>wrote:
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.
How long is such a group likely to take and would it be developing a new
CODEC or selecting from existing unencumbered choices?
Is there an expectation that such a group would produce a CODEC better than
MPEG2 or report substantially earlier than the expiry of the last patents
in the MPEG2 pool (expected to be ~2017)?
Half the MPEG2 patents have expired already and it is possible that a
subset of the MPEG2 CODEC could be defined that avoided IPR encumbrances.
But it is hard to see such a CODEC gaining significant ground in the next 4
years.
MPEG2 is not as efficient as H.264 and it does not support all the same
modes. But it is almost certainly good enough for MTI.
The best approach to this problem looks to me to be to do what we did with
the Diffie Hellman and RSA patents and wait for them to expire. We did
start pushing DH and El Gamal based schemes between 1997 and 2000 when
those were out of patent but RSA was still covered. Doing the same with
H.264 makes sense.
The long tail patents on H.264 is very long, there is at least one in the
pool that does not expire till 2027
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/