I think that the response drafted by Alissa is sufficient and I agree with Eric; what's required is simply a response and not a debate.
I would suggest that people who have invested their time and resources into getting this working group started, focus on getting the technical work done instead of going back to debates about where to do the work. Note that the ITU and ISO/IEC have indeed attempted to develop RF codecs and yes there are ongoing efforts, but its always an uphill struggle within the relevant working groups in those organizations because of the anti-RF crowd there. Perhaps this work will progress more easily through the IETF - but I strongly doubt that will be the case if the technical approach taken by the NETVC working group resembles the technical approaches in AVC and HEVC. BR, On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Euee S. Jang <[email protected]> wrote: > A very interesting suggestion. > > Maybe what we can do together with MPEG is to initiate such a discussion. > In fact, the recent video codecs from MPEG such as AVC and HEVC are all > coming from the collaboration with ITU SG 16. > > If IETF is willing to talk with MPEG on such a matter, it would be also > nice let them know. > > Euee > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Monty Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 9:47 PM > To: Euee S. Jang > Cc: Timothy B. Terriberry; Alissa Cooper; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [video-codec] LS from ITU-T SG 16 > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Euee S. Jang <[email protected]> wrote: > > The licensing issue has been one of the major driving forces in MPEG. > And this is why it is so hard to make one which is royally free. > > Still, I wanted to mention that there are people/industry who would like > to make Type-1 (royalty-free) MPEG standards. > > There are! And I absolutely do not want to dismiss them. There has been > strong royalty-free sentiment at the MPEG from the outset (I believe > starting with Leo Chiariglione himself). > > *They should come join us.* > > Despite a strong and consistent RF movement, MPEG continues to turn out > increasingly encumbered formats even for efforts which ostensibly intended > to deliver a minimum of a royalty-free baseline. That suggests there is a > structural problem with MPEG itself (but that's a different discussion). > > So, I would encourage those people within MPEG who want to see a royalty > free standard to come join us at the IETF. IETF has an established history > of royalty free work (even if it's relatively new at codecs). The > individuals of the IETF have already succeeded at RF many times. More > often than not, it's the default assumption (after all, licensing seriously > gums up ubiquitous adoption). And again, I would argue that's due to > structural and incentive differences. > > > After all, those who are in MPEG Type-1 are not *they*, but may well be > *we* that should work together. > > Yes! Nor do I think anyone here would suggest that the MPEG does not turn > out top notch work. However, I can't use any of it. And for that reason, > I've chosen an environment most likely to maximize my personal success. It > is not within the structure of the MPEG. I do not think that if my group > and I chose to join an MPEG effort, we would overcome the structural biases > against RF. > > Monty > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > -- Mohammed Raad, PhD. Partner RAADTECH CONSULTING P.O. Box 113 Warrawong NSW 2502 Australia Phone: +61 414451478 Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
