I know Thomas already responded, but... On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Keith Winstein <[email protected]> wrote: > But what are the merits of an IETF working group performing this kind of > high-risk, high-reward research, versus doing something much more boring > like "writing a specification for VP9 to enable interoperable > implementations, and then iterating on that technology"?
Personally, I'd like to see Google submit their VPx work as an input to this process and even more interested in seeing them participate in development. Just like with Opus, I don't think the IETF is interested (and I'm certainly not interested) in rubber-stamping an existing codec. ...it would also go a long way toward repairing VP9's image in the marketplace. Like it or not, the conventional wisdom is 'VP9 is a proprietary codec with uncertain IPR status'. IP is obviously a major concern of ours, and we don't believe a strategy of 'we'll just win in court' is likely to win an adoption war. Monty _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
