Alissa Cooper wrote:
Everything else would remain the same. The above edits don’t change the kinds of things WG may want to do to help produce a codec that many parties can believe to be RF, but they stay closer to the existing BCP 79 language that we usually rely on.
This new text also works for me.
I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually,
I personally have no problem with that, either. _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
