From nobody Wed Apr 1 11:45:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458241A8762 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ag5s0DPflYzQ for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A20E21A1A14 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t31Ij0iX041611 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:45:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local Message-ID: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:44:17 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: video-codec@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020009000903030001030102" Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:45:05 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020009000903030001030102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [as chair] Based on the discussions at the face-to-face meeting in Dallas, I have attached a revised charter proposal for the proposed working group. The changes between the version presented during the BOF and this one are detailed in the attached HTML file. Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, would be helpful. Thanks! /a --------------020009000903030001030102 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="netvc-charter-01.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netvc-charter-01.txt" T2JqZWN0aXZlcwoKVGhpcyBXRyBpcyBjaGFydGVyZWQgdG8gcHJvZHVjZSBhIGhpZ2gtcXVh bGl0eSB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IG1lZXRzIHRoZQpmb2xsb3dpbmcgY29uZGl0aW9uczoK CjEuIElzIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlIHdpdGggY3VycmVudCB2aWRlbyBjb2RlY3MgaW4gd2lkZXNw cmVhZCB1c2UuCgoyLiBJcyBvcHRpbWl6ZWQgZm9yIHVzZSBpbiBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSB3ZWIg YXBwbGljYXRpb25zLgoKMy4gSXMgdmlld2VkIGFzIGhhdmluZyBJUFIgbGljZW5zaW5nIHRl cm1zIHRoYXQgYWxsb3cgaXQgdG8gYmUgd2lkZWx5CmltcGxlbWVudGVkIGFuZCBkZXBsb3ll ZC4KClRvIGVsYWJvcmF0ZSwgdGhpcyB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgY29t bWVyY2lhbGx5IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRvCmltcGxlbWVudCBieSBiZWluZyBjb21wZXRpdGl2 ZSB3aXRoIHRoZSB2aWRlbyBjb2RlY3MgaW4gd2lkZXNwcmVhZCB1c2UgYXQgdGhlCnRpbWUg aXQgaXMgZmluYWxpemVkLgoKVGhpcyB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgb3B0 aW1pemVkIGZvciB0aGUgcmVhbC13b3JsZCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mCnRoZSBwdWJsaWMsIGJl c3QtZWZmb3J0IEludGVybmV0LiBJdCBzaG91bGQgaW5jbHVkZSwgYnV0IG1heSBub3QgYmUg bGltaXRlZAp0bywgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBmYXN0IGFuZCBmbGV4aWJsZSBj b25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgYW5kIHJhdGUKYWRhcHRhdGlvbiwgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8g cXVpY2tseSBqb2luIGJyb2FkY2FzdCBzdHJlYW1zIGFuZCB0aGUgYWJpbGl0eSB0bwpiZSBv cHRpbWl6ZWQgZm9yIGNhcHR1cmVzIG9mIGNvbnRlbnQgdHlwaWNhbGx5IHNoYXJlZCBpbiBp bnRlcmFjdGl2ZQpjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucy4KClRoZSBvYmplY3RpdmUgaXMgdG8gcHJvZHVj ZSBhIHZpZGVvIGNvZGVjIHRoYXQgY2FuIGJlIGltcGxlbWVudGVkLApkaXN0cmlidXRlZCwg YW5kIGRlcGxveWVkIGJ5IG9wZW4gc291cmNlIGFuZCBjbG9zZWQgc291cmNlIHNvZnR3YXJl IGFzIHdlbGwgYXMKaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgaW4gc3BlY2lhbGl6ZWQgaGFyZHdhcmUuCgpUaGUg V0cgd2lsbCBwcmVmZXIgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBvciB0b29scyB3aGVyZSB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdmVy aWZpYWJsZSByZWFzb25zIHRvCmJlbGlldmUgdGhleSBhcmUgUkYgb3ZlciBhbGdvcml0aG1z IG9yIHRvb2xzIHdoZXJlIHRoZXJlIGlzIFJGIHVuY2VydGFpbnR5IG9yCmtub3duIGFjdGl2 ZSBJUFIgY2xhaW1zIHdpdGggcm95YWx0eSBsaWFiaWxpdHkgcG90ZW50aWFsLiBUaGUgY29k ZWMKc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiB3aWxsIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoeSBpdCBiZWxpZXZlcyB0aGF0IGVh Y2ggcGFydCBpcyBsaWtlbHkgdG8gYmUgUkYsCndoaWNoIHdpbGwgaGVscCBhZG9wdGlvbiBv ZiB0aGUgY29kZWMuIFRoaXMgY2FuIGluY2x1ZGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyB0byBvbGQKcHJpb3Ig YXJ0IGFuZC9vciBwYXRlbnQgcmVzZWFyY2ggaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uCgpQcm9jZXNzCgpUaGUg Y29yZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgZm9yIHN1Y2ggYSBjb2RlYyBpbmNsdWRl LCBidXQgYXJlIG5vdApuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBsaW1pdGVkIHRvLCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOgoK MS4gSGlnaCBjb21wcmVzc2lvbiBlZmZpY2llbmN5IHRoYXQgaXMgY29tcGV0aXRpdmUgd2l0 aCBleGlzdGluZyBwb3B1bGFyIHZpZGVvCmNvZGVjcy4KCjIuIFJlYXNvbmFibGUgY29tcHV0 YXRpb25hbCBjb21wbGV4aXR5IHRoYXQgcGVybWl0cyByZWFsLXRpbWUgb3BlcmF0aW9uIG9u CmV4aXN0aW5nLCBwb3B1bGFyIGhhcmR3YXJlLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgbW9iaWxlIGRldmljZXMs IGFuZCBlZmZpY2llbnQKaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gaW4gbmV3IGhhcmR3YXJlIGRlc2lnbnMu CgozLiBVc2UgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgcmVhbC10aW1lIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucywgc3VjaCBh cyBwb2ludC10by1wb2ludCB2aWRlbwpjYWxscywgbXVsdGktcGFydHkgdmlkZW8gY29uZmVy ZW5jaW5nLCB0ZWxlcHJlc2VuY2UsIHRlbGVvcGVyYXRpb24sIGFuZAppbi1nYW1lIHZpZGVv IGNoYXQuCgo0LiBSZXNpbGllbnQgaW4gdGhlIHJlYWwtd29ybGQgdHJhbnNwb3J0IGNvbmRp dGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIEludGVybmV0LCBzdWNoIGFzCnRoZSBmbGV4aWJpbGl0eSB0byByYXBp ZGx5IHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gY2hhbmdpbmcgYmFuZHdpZHRoIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgbG9z cwpyYXRlcywgZXRjLgoKNS4gSW50ZWdyYXRhYmxlIHdpdGggY29tbW9uIEludGVybmV0IGFw cGxpY2F0aW9ucyBhbmQgV2ViIEFQSXMgKGUuZy4sIHRoZQpIVE1MNSA8dmlkZW8+IHRhZyBh bmQgV2ViUlRDIEFQSSwgbGl2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcsIGFkYXB0aXZlIHN0cmVhbWluZywgYW5k CmNvbW1vbiBtZWRpYS1yZWxhdGVkIEFQSXMpIHdpdGhvdXQgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIGFueSBw YXJ0aWN1bGFyIEFQSS4KClRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGlt cGFjdHMgaXRzIGRlY2lzaW9ucyBoYXZlIG9uIHRoZQplZmZpY2llbmN5IG9mIHRyYW5zY29k aW5nIHRvIGFuZCBmcm9tIG90aGVyIGV4aXN0aW5nIHZpZGVvIGNvZGVjcy4KClRoZSB3b3Jr aW5nIGdyb3VwIHNoYWxsIGhlZWQgdGhlIHByZWZlcmVuY2Ugc3RhdGVkIGluIEJDUCA3OTog IkluIGdlbmVyYWwsCklFVEYgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgcHJlZmVyIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyB3 aXRoIG5vIGtub3duIElQUiBjbGFpbXMgb3IsIGZvcgp0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgd2l0aCBjbGFp bXMgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGVtLCBhbiBvZmZlciBvZiByb3lhbHR5LWZyZWUgbGljZW5zaW5nLiIK VGhpcyBwcmVmZXJlbmNlIGNhbm5vdCBndWFyYW50ZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCB3aWxsIHByb2R1Y2UgYW4gSVBSCnVuZW5jdW1iZXJlZCBjb2RlYy4KCgpOb24tR29hbHMK Ckl0IGlzIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgbm90IGEgZ29hbCBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB0byBw cm9kdWNlIGEgY29kZWMgdGhhdCB3aWxsCmJlIG1hbmRhdGVkIGZvciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlv biBhY3Jvc3MgdGhlIGVudGlyZSBJRVRGIG9yIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eS4KCkJhc2Vk IG9uIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwJ3MgYW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgdGhlIGRlc2lnbiBzcGFjZSwg dGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAKbWlnaHQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoYXQgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gcHJv ZHVjZSBhIGNvZGVjIHdpdGggbXVsdGlwbGUgbW9kZXMgb2YKb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgV0cg bWF5IHByb2R1Y2UgYSBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IGlzIGhpZ2hseSBjb25maWd1cmFibGUsIG9wZXJh dGluZwppbiBtYW55IGRpZmZlcmVudCBtb2RlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHNtb290 aGx5IGJlIGV4dGVuZGVkIHdpdGggbmV3Cm1vZGVzIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuCgoKQ29sbGFi b3JhdGlvbgoKSW4gY29tcGxldGluZyBpdHMgd29yaywgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2ls bCBsaWFpc2Ugd2l0aCBvdGhlciByZWxldmFudCBJRVRGCndvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzIGFuZCBT RE9zLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgUEFZTE9BRCwgUk1DQVQsIFJUQ1dFQiwgTU1VU0lDLCBhbmQgb3Ro ZXIKSUVURiBXR3MgdGhhdCBtYWtlIHVzZSBvZiBvciBoYW5kbGUgbmVnb3RpYXRpb24gb2Yg Y29kZWNzOyBXM0Mgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMKaW5jbHVkaW5nIEhUTUwsIERldmljZSBBUElz IGFuZCBXZWJSVEM7IGFuZCBJVFUtVCAoU3R1ZHkgZ3JvdXAgMTYpOyBJU08vSUVDCihKVEMx L1NDMjkgV0cxMSk7IDNHUFAgKFNBNCk7IGFuZCBKQ1QtVkMuCgpJdCBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0 aGF0IGFuIG9wZW4gc291cmNlIHJlZmVyZW5jZSB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBjb2RlYyB3aWxs IGJlCmRldmVsb3BlZCBpbiBwYXJhbGxlbCB3aXRoIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwLgoKVGhl IFdHIHdpbGwgYWNjZXB0IGFuZCBjb25zaWRlciBpbiBpdHMgZGVjaXNpb24gcHJvY2VzcyBp bnB1dCByZWNlaXZlZCBmcm9tCmV4dGVybmFsIHBhcnRpZXMgY29uY2VybmluZyBJUFIgcmlz ayBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggcHJvcG9zZWQgYWxnb3JpdGhtcy4KCgpEZWxpdmVyYWJsZXMK CjEuIEEgc2V0IG9mIHRlY2huaWNhbCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgYW5kIGV2YWx1YXRpb24gY3Jp dGVyaWEuIFRoZSBXRyBtYXkgY2hvb3NlCnRvIHB1cnN1ZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGVz ZSBpbiBhbiBSRkMgaWYgaXQgZGVlbXMgdGhhdCB0byBiZSBiZW5lZmljaWFsLgoKMi4gUHJv cG9zZWQgU3RhbmRhcmQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBhbiBlbmNvZGVkIGJpdCBzdHJlYW0g YW5kIGRlY29kZXIKb3BlcmF0aW9uIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBub3JtYXRpdmUgZm9ybWF0cyBhbmQg YWxnb3JpdGhtcyBhcmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIEVuZ2xpc2gKdGV4dCBhbmQgbm90IGFzIGNv ZGUuCgozLiBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9mIGEgc3RvcmFnZSBmb3JtYXQgZm9yIGZpbGUgdHJh bnNmZXIgb2YgdGhlIGVuY29kZWQgdmlkZW8gYXMKYW4gZWxlbWVudGFyeSBzdHJlYW0gY29t cGF0aWJsZSB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nLCBwb3B1bGFyIGNvbnRhaW5lciBmb3JtYXRzIHRvCnN1 cHBvcnQgbm9uLWludGVyYWN0aXZlIChIVFRQKSBzdHJlYW1pbmcsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBsaXZl IGVuY29kaW5nIGFuZCBib3RoCnByb2dyZXNzaXZlIGFuZCBsYXJnZS1jaHVuayBkb3dubG9h ZHMuIFRoZSBXRyB3aWxsIG5vdCBkZXZlbG9wIGEgbmV3IGNvbnRhaW5lcgpmb3JtYXQuCgo0 LiBBIGNvbGxlY3Rpb24gb2YgdGVzdCByZXN1bHRzLCBlaXRoZXIgZnJvbSB0ZXN0cyBjb25k dWN0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcKZ3JvdXAgb3IgbWFkZSBwdWJsaWNseSBhdmFpbGFibGUg ZWxzZXdoZXJlLCBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpemluZyB0aGUgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2Ugb2YKdGhlIGNvZGVj LiBUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHNoYWxsIGJlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwuCgoKR29hbHMgYW5kIE1p bGVzdG9uZXMKClRCRCAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHRvIElFU0csIGlmIHRoZSBXRyBzbyBjaG9v c2VzIChJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsKQoKVEJEICBTdWJtaXQgY29kZWMgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiB0 byBJRVNHIChTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJhY2spCgpUQkQgIFN1Ym1pdCBzdG9yYWdlIGZvcm1hdCBz cGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgKFN0YW5kYXJkcyBUcmFjaykKClRCRCAgVGVzdGluZyBk b2N1bWVudCB0byBJRVNHIChJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsKQoKCgo= --------------020009000903030001030102 Content-Type: text/html; name="netvc-charter-diffs.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netvc-charter-diffs.html" PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PHRpdGxlPndkaWZmIG5ldHZjLWNoYXJ0ZXItMDAudHh0IG5ldHZjLWNo YXJ0ZXItMDEudHh0PC90aXRsZT48L2hlYWQ+PGJvZHk+CjxwcmU+Ck9iamVjdGl2ZXMKClRo aXMgV0cgaXMgY2hhcnRlcmVkIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBoaWdoLXF1YWxpdHkgdmlkZW8gY29k ZWMgdGhhdCBtZWV0cyB0aGUKZm9sbG93aW5nIGNvbmRpdGlvbnM6CgoxLiBJcyBjb21wZXRp dGl2ZSB3aXRoIGN1cnJlbnQgdmlkZW8gY29kZWNzIGluIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQgdXNlLgoKMi4g SXMgb3B0aW1pemVkIGZvciB1c2UgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgd2ViIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucy4K CjMuIElzIHZpZXdlZCBhcyBoYXZpbmcgSVBSIGxpY2Vuc2luZyB0ZXJtcyB0aGF0IGFsbG93 IGl0IHRvIGJlIHdpZGVseQppbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBhbmQgZGVwbG95ZWQuCgpUbyBlbGFib3Jh dGUsIHRoaXMgdmlkZW8gY29kZWMgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNvbW1lcmNpYWxseSBpbnRl cmVzdGluZyB0bwppbXBsZW1lbnQgYnkgYmVpbmcgY29tcGV0aXRpdmUgd2l0aCB0aGUgdmlk ZW8gY29kZWNzIGluIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQgdXNlIGF0IHRoZQp0aW1lIGl0IGlzIGZpbmFsaXpl ZC4KClRoaXMgdmlkZW8gY29kZWMgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIG9wdGltaXplZCBmb3IgdGhl IHJlYWwtd29ybGQgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvZgp0aGUgcHVibGljLCBiZXN0LWVmZm9ydCBJbnRl cm5ldC4gSXQgc2hvdWxkIGluY2x1ZGUsIGJ1dCBtYXkgbm90IGJlIGxpbWl0ZWQKdG8sIHRo ZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgZmFzdCBhbmQgZmxleGlibGUgY29uZ2VzdGlvbiBjb250 cm9sIGFuZCByYXRlCmFkYXB0YXRpb24sIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHF1aWNrbHkgam9pbiBi cm9hZGNhc3Qgc3RyZWFtcyBhbmQgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8KYmUgb3B0aW1pemVkIGZvciBj YXB0dXJlcyBvZiBjb250ZW50IHR5cGljYWxseSBzaGFyZWQgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUKY29t bXVuaWNhdGlvbnMuCgpUaGUgb2JqZWN0aXZlIGlzIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSB2aWRlbyBjb2Rl YyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCwKZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIGFuZCBkZXBsb3llZCBi eSBvcGVuIHNvdXJjZSBhbmQgY2xvc2VkIHNvdXJjZSBzb2Z0d2FyZSBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzCmlt cGxlbWVudGVkIGluIHNwZWNpYWxpemVkIGhhcmR3YXJlLgoKVGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgcHJlZmVy IGFsZ29yaXRobXMgb3IgdG9vbHMgd2hlcmUgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHZlcmlmaWFibGUgcmVhc29u cyB0bwpiZWxpZXZlIHRoZXkgYXJlIFJGIG92ZXIgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBvciB0b29scyB3aGVy ZSB0aGVyZSBpcyBSRiB1bmNlcnRhaW50eSBvcgprbm93biBhY3RpdmUgSVBSIGNsYWltcyB3 aXRoIHJveWFsdHkgbGlhYmlsaXR5IHBvdGVudGlhbC4gVGhlIGNvZGVjCnNwZWNpZmljYXRp b24gd2lsbCBkb2N1bWVudCB3aHkgaXQgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdGhhdCBlYWNoIHBhcnQgaXMgbGlr ZWx5IHRvIGJlIFJGLAp3aGljaCB3aWxsIGhlbHAgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGNvZGVjLiBU aGlzIGNhbiBpbmNsdWRlIHJlZmVyZW5jZXMgdG8gb2xkCnByaW9yIGFydCBhbmQvb3IgcGF0 ZW50IHJlc2VhcmNoIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLgoKUHJvY2VzcwoKVGhlIGNvcmUgdGVjaG5pY2Fs IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIGZvciBzdWNoIGEgY29kZWMgaW5jbHVkZSwgYnV0IGFyZSBub3QK bmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgbGltaXRlZCB0bywgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoKCjEuIEhpZ2ggY29tcHJl c3Npb24gZWZmaWNpZW5jeSB0aGF0IGlzIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlIHdpdGggZXhpc3RpbmcgcG9w dWxhciB2aWRlbwpjb2RlY3MuCgoyLiBSZWFzb25hYmxlIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uYWwgY29tcGxl eGl0eSB0aGF0IHBlcm1pdHMgcmVhbC10aW1lIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBvbgpleGlzdGluZywgcG9w dWxhciBoYXJkd2FyZSwgPHU+PHN0cm9uZz48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0nZ3JlZW4nPmluY2x1ZGlu ZyBtb2JpbGUgZGV2aWNlcyw8L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBhbmQgZWZmaWNpZW50Cmlt cGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGluIG5ldyBoYXJkd2FyZSBkZXNpZ25zLgoKMy4gVXNlIGluIGludGVy YWN0aXZlIDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz5yZWFsLXRpbWU8L2ZvbnQ+ PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMsIHN1Y2ggYXMgcG9pbnQtdG8tcG9pbnQgdmlk ZW8KY2FsbHMsIG11bHRpLXBhcnR5IHZpZGVvIGNvbmZlcmVuY2luZywgdGVsZXByZXNlbmNl LCB0ZWxlb3BlcmF0aW9uLCBhbmQKaW4tZ2FtZSB2aWRlbyBjaGF0LgoKNC4gUmVzaWxpZW50 IGluIHRoZSByZWFsLXdvcmxkIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBJbnRlcm5l dCwgc3VjaCBhcwp0aGUgZmxleGliaWxpdHkgdG8gcmFwaWRseSByZXNwb25kIHRvIGNoYW5n aW5nIGJhbmR3aWR0aCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgYW5kIGxvc3MKcmF0ZXMsIGV0Yy4KCjUuIElu dGVncmF0YWJsZSB3aXRoIGNvbW1vbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgYW5kIFdlYiBB UElzIChlLmcuLCB0aGUKSFRNTDUgJmx0O3ZpZGVvJmd0OyB0YWcgYW5kIFdlYlJUQyBBUEks IGxpdmUgc3RyZWFtaW5nLCBhZGFwdGl2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcsIGFuZApjb21tb24gbWVkaWEt cmVsYXRlZCA8c3RyaWtlPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdyZWQnPkFQSXM8L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+ IDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz5BUElzKTwvZm9udD48L3N0cm9uZz48 L3U+IHdpdGhvdXQgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIGFueSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIDxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQg Y29sb3I9J3JlZCc+QVBJLikuPC9mb250Pjwvc3RyaWtlPiA8dT48c3Ryb25nPjxmb250IGNv bG9yPSdncmVlbic+QVBJLgoKVGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCBjb25zaWRlciB0aGUg aW1wYWN0cyBpdHMgZGVjaXNpb25zIGhhdmUgb24gdGhlCmVmZmljaWVuY3kgb2YgdHJhbnNj b2RpbmcgdG8gYW5kIGZyb20gb3RoZXIgZXhpc3RpbmcgdmlkZW8gY29kZWNzLjwvZm9udD48 L3N0cm9uZz48L3U+CgpUaGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBzaGFsbCBoZWVkIHRoZSBwcmVmZXJl bmNlIHN0YXRlZCBpbiBCQ1AgNzk6ICJJbiBnZW5lcmFsLApJRVRGIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBz IHByZWZlciB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgd2l0aCBubyBrbm93biBJUFIgY2xhaW1zIG9yLCBmb3IK dGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIHdpdGggY2xhaW1zIGFnYWluc3QgdGhlbSwgYW4gb2ZmZXIgb2Ygcm95 YWx0eS1mcmVlIGxpY2Vuc2luZy4iClRoaXMgcHJlZmVyZW5jZSBjYW5ub3QgZ3VhcmFudGVl IHRoYXQgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCBwcm9kdWNlIGFuIElQUgp1bmVuY3VtYmVy ZWQgY29kZWMuCgpOb24tR29hbHMKCjxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J3JlZCc+T3B0aW1p emluZyBmb3IgdmVyeSBsb3cgYml0IHJhdGVzICh0eXBpY2FsbHkgYmVsb3cgMjU2IGticHMp IGlzIG91dCBvZiBzY29wZQpiZWNhdXNlIHN1Y2ggd29yayBtaWdodCBuZWNlc3NpdGF0ZSBz cGVjaWFsaXplZCBvcHRpbWl6YXRpb25zLjwvZm9udD48L3N0cmlrZT4KCkl0IGlzIGV4cGxp Y2l0bHkgbm90IGEgZ29hbCBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB0byBwcm9kdWNlIGEgY29k ZWMgdGhhdCB3aWxsCmJlIG1hbmRhdGVkIGZvciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBhY3Jvc3MgdGhl IGVudGlyZSBJRVRGIG9yIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eS4KCkJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSB3b3Jr aW5nIGdyb3VwJ3MgYW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgdGhlIGRlc2lnbiBzcGFjZSwgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcg Z3JvdXAKbWlnaHQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoYXQgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gcHJvZHVjZSBhIGNvZGVj IHdpdGggbXVsdGlwbGUgbW9kZXMgb2YKb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgV0cgbWF5IHByb2R1Y2Ug YSBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IGlzIGhpZ2hseSBjb25maWd1cmFibGUsIG9wZXJhdGluZwppbiBtYW55 IGRpZmZlcmVudCBtb2RlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHNtb290aGx5IGJlIGV4dGVu ZGVkIHdpdGggbmV3Cm1vZGVzIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuCgpDb2xsYWJvcmF0aW9uCgpJbiBj b21wbGV0aW5nIGl0cyB3b3JrLCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGxpYWlzZSB3aXRo IG90aGVyIHJlbGV2YW50IElFVEYKd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgYW5kIFNET3MsIGluY2x1ZGlu ZyBQQVlMT0FELCBSTUNBVCwgUlRDV0VCLCBNTVVTSUMsIGFuZCBvdGhlcgpJRVRGIFdHcyB0 aGF0IG1ha2UgdXNlIG9mIG9yIGhhbmRsZSBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiBvZiBjb2RlY3M7IFczQyB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwcwppbmNsdWRpbmcgSFRNTCwgRGV2aWNlIEFQSXMgYW5kIFdlYlJUQzsg YW5kIElUVS1UIChTdHVkeSBncm91cCA8c3RyaWtlPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdyZWQnPjE2KSBh bmQ8L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+IDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz4xNik7 PC9mb250Pjwvc3Ryb25nPjwvdT4gSVNPL0lFQwooSlRDMS9TQzI5IDxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQg Y29sb3I9J3JlZCc+V0cxMSkuPC9mb250Pjwvc3RyaWtlPiA8dT48c3Ryb25nPjxmb250IGNv bG9yPSdncmVlbic+V0cxMSk7IDNHUFAgKFNBNCk7IGFuZCBKQ1QtVkMuPC9mb250Pjwvc3Ry b25nPjwvdT4KCkl0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoYXQgYW4gb3BlbiBzb3VyY2UgcmVmZXJlbmNl IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGNvZGVjIHdpbGwgYmUKZGV2ZWxvcGVkIGluIHBhcmFsbGVsIHdp dGggdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAuCgpUaGUgV0cgd2lsbCBhY2NlcHQgYW5kIGNvbnNpZGVy IGluIGl0cyBkZWNpc2lvbiBwcm9jZXNzIGlucHV0IHJlY2VpdmVkIGZyb20KZXh0ZXJuYWwg cGFydGllcyBjb25jZXJuaW5nIElQUiByaXNrIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBwcm9wb3NlZCBh bGdvcml0aG1zLgoKRGVsaXZlcmFibGVzCgoxLiBBIDxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J3Jl ZCc+ZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCBvdXRsaW5lcyB0aGUgSVBSIHRlcm1zIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdy b3VwIHdpc2hlcwpjb250cmlidXRvcnMgdG8gdGhlIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb25zIHdvdWxkIHVz ZSB0byBsaWNlbnNlIHRoZWlyIElQUi4KCjIuIEE8L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+IHNldCBvZiB0 ZWNobmljYWwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBldmFsdWF0aW9uIDxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29s b3I9J3JlZCc+bWV0cmljcy48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+IDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29s b3I9J2dyZWVuJz5jcml0ZXJpYS48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBUaGUgV0cgbWF5IGNo b29zZQp0byBwdXJzdWUgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlc2UgaW4gYW4gUkZDIGlmIGl0IGRl ZW1zIHRoYXQgdG8gYmUgYmVuZWZpY2lhbC4KCjxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J3JlZCc+ My48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+Cgo8dT48c3Ryb25nPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdncmVlbic+Mi48 L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBQcm9wb3NlZCBTdGFuZGFyZCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9m IGFuIDxzdHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J3JlZCc+ZW5jb2RlcjwvZm9udD48L3N0cmlrZT4g PHU+PHN0cm9uZz48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0nZ3JlZW4nPmVuY29kZWQgYml0IHN0cmVhbTwvZm9u dD48L3N0cm9uZz48L3U+IGFuZCBkZWNvZGVyCjx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dy ZWVuJz5vcGVyYXRpb248L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiB3aGVyZSB0aGUgbm9ybWF0aXZl IDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz5mb3JtYXRzIGFuZDwvZm9udD48L3N0 cm9uZz48L3U+IGFsZ29yaXRobXMgYXJlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiBFbmdsaXNoCnRleHQgYW5k IG5vdCBhcyBjb2RlLgoKPHN0cmlrZT48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0ncmVkJz40LjwvZm9udD48L3N0 cmlrZT4KCjx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz4zLjwvZm9udD48L3N0cm9u Zz48L3U+IFNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gb2YgYSBzdG9yYWdlIGZvcm1hdCBmb3IgZmlsZSB0cmFu c2ZlciBvZiB0aGUgZW5jb2RlZCB2aWRlbyBhcwphbiBlbGVtZW50YXJ5IHN0cmVhbSBjb21w YXRpYmxlIHdpdGggZXhpc3RpbmcsIHBvcHVsYXIgY29udGFpbmVyIGZvcm1hdHMgdG8Kc3Vw cG9ydCBub24taW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgKEhUVFApIHN0cmVhbWluZywgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGxpdmUg ZW5jb2RpbmcgYW5kIGJvdGgKcHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUgYW5kIGxhcmdlLWNodW5rIGRvd25sb2Fk cy4gVGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgbm90IGRldmVsb3AgYSBuZXcgY29udGFpbmVyCmZvcm1hdC4KCjxz dHJpa2U+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J3JlZCc+NS48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+Cgo8dT48c3Ryb25n Pjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdncmVlbic+NC48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBBIGNvbGxlY3Rp b24gb2YgdGVzdCByZXN1bHRzLCBlaXRoZXIgZnJvbSB0ZXN0cyBjb25kdWN0ZWQgYnkgdGhl IHdvcmtpbmcKZ3JvdXAgb3IgbWFkZSBwdWJsaWNseSBhdmFpbGFibGUgZWxzZXdoZXJlLCBj aGFyYWN0ZXJpemluZyB0aGUgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2Ugb2YKdGhlIGNvZGVjLiBUaGlzIGRvY3Vt ZW50IHNoYWxsIGJlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwuCgpHb2FscyBhbmQgTWlsZXN0b25lcwoKVEJE ICA8c3RyaWtlPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdyZWQnPklQUiBsaWNlbnNpbmcgdGVybXMgZ29hbHMg KEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwpCgpUQkQ8L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJpa2U+ICBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdG8g SUVTRywgaWYgdGhlIFdHIHNvIGNob29zZXMgKEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwpCgpUQkQgIFN1Ym1p dCBjb2RlYyBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgKFN0YW5kYXJkcyBUcmFjaykKClRCRCAg U3VibWl0IHN0b3JhZ2UgZm9ybWF0IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gdG8gSUVTRyAoU3RhbmRhcmRz IFRyYWNrKQoKVEJEICBUZXN0aW5nIGRvY3VtZW50IHRvIElFU0cgKEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwp CjwvcHJlPgo8L2JvZHk+PC9odG1sPgo= --------------020009000903030001030102-- From nobody Wed Apr 1 15:41:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D31B1A9175 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLPi0wjEpqNg for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AFC1A1ADF for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE165C1987; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:41:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xY1wWxBwF4_c; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.252.28.193] (corp.mtv2.mozilla.com [63.245.221.32]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 951BAC1028; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:41:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <551C7412.4050009@xiph.org> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:41:22 -0700 From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Roach , video-codec@ietf.org References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 22:41:25 -0000 Adam Roach wrote: > Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple > affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, > would be helpful. One point from Jean-Marc: do we want to have a separate deliverable for the reference implementation? In CODEC this was part of the main specification, since it was normative, but since we have agreed to make the English text normative for NETVC, it could potentially live in a separate document. Other than that question, I think the document looks good in its current form. From nobody Thu Apr 2 21:10:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288821A0187 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHypETTsILFu for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A681A0197 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:09:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1777; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428034142; x=1429243742; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=A5KUTIoYSPoLksgNM57zH1EryKw0gU3lw5Xo+F+vjno=; b=JIvVGhqoc16rLjcu3Cf5xMuAY6DVpa2XXkc15FIzNuaqtFnkS359/vY6 WPK3U2A/DQ+qQejZ4YaH+hd5G9QP3tjL1ABgZHXdGFoR+/fdQ9XPU9kNF VnKD8Wn2jtRKXaoCMJbLpQdo/9B4YqJ2CSDsXZmnYTYurqmBiP0ZI8+V0 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ASBQCfER5V/4MNJK1cgwuBLgXLbAKBN0wBAQEBAQF+hB8BAQR5EAIBCEYyJQIEAQ0FiC/NDAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIsphDAWMweELQEEinGFeYoAlEsig29vgQNBfwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,515,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="405771998" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2015 04:09:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t33490o0008416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 04:09:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.214]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 23:09:00 -0500 From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" To: Adam Roach , "video-codec@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised Thread-Index: AQHQbcPpawhhW/IFu0S2yeTGTM/31A== Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 04:08:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116 x-originating-ip: [64.100.32.216] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <22B5445953F5A44484D4D75B0A45A5DF@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 04:10:23 -0000 It=B9s unclear if =B3evaluation criteria=B2 in the first deliverable matche= s the first or last milestone. Deliverables 1. A set of technical requirements and evaluation criteria. The WG may choose to pursue publication of these in an RFC if it deems that to be beneficial. ... Goals and Milestones TBD Requirements to IESG, if the WG so chooses (Informational) TBD Submit codec specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD Submit storage format specification to IESG (Standards Track) TBD Testing document to IESG (Informational) My interpretation of =B3evaluation criteria=B2 is to document the methodolo= gy of iterative testing during codec development to guide the design decisions. This must come very early, probably just after requirements. I suggest to add a separate milestone for it just after requirements, or add it in the first milestone along with requirements. My interpretation of the final milestone is testing the completed codec to verify the goals were met, since it comes last. I=B9m not sure how useful o= r necessary this is. It likely came from the opus/codec wg charter, which is also revisiting the need for this (still outstanding) milestone. I suggest to remove it until its purpose and need is clear. Mo On 4/1/15, 2:44 PM, Adam Roach wrote: [as chair] Based on the discussions at the face-to-face meeting in Dallas, I have attached a revised charter proposal for the proposed working group. The changes between the version presented during the BOF and this one are detailed in the attached HTML file. Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, would be helpful. Thanks! /a From nobody Fri Apr 3 07:58:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DE11ABD37 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ug3HHU5i2O3g for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1402D1ABC75 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t33Ew2HJ016826 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:58:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local Message-ID: <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 09:56:44 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" , "video-codec@ietf.org" References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 14:58:12 -0000 On 4/2/15 23:08, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: > It's unclear if "evaluation criteria" in the first deliverable matches the > first or last milestone. I was reading it as being part of the first deliverable (as the deliverables and milestones for the charter otherwise match each other in order, number, and content). I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..." That said, I wouldn't get too hung up on the "Milestones" section. We can change that pretty easily after the group is chartered, if we discover reason to do so; and, in most cases, they aim to brief rather than self-explanatory (leaving completeness to the body of the charter). When looking at what the working group is allowed/expected to work on, it's really the "Deliverables" section that you should focus on. > My interpretation of the final milestone is testing the completed codec to > verify the goals were met, since it comes last. I'm not sure how useful or > necessary this is. It likely came from the opus/codec wg charter, which is > also revisiting the need for this (still outstanding) milestone. I suggest > to remove it until its purpose and need is clear. > The actual deliverable is described thus: "A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This document shall be informational." In that context, do you still believe that this document should not be part of what the WG intends to work on? My personal, non-chair position is that a characterization document would be useful and relevant to the WG's goals (which include demonstrating that the codec is "competitive"); and I believe that we have people willing to work on it. Since it's the last thing slated to be delivered, it doesn't hold up other work, and those parties who don't care about its contents don't need to wait for its publication. /a From nobody Fri Apr 3 08:53:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A82E1AC3C2 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:53:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EnSoV9MFplv2 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E04751AC3BE for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=380; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428076409; x=1429286009; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=exlWJJzr3+0el49mZ3xZlbiZlzfLHW4n0hzYbgED654=; b=GnM/A/h4mXQl8hoBsZ9rfZSkuxtdMSX0YMEaG6/TsZVoc5y5kDz1Im3p MqakceHxDI37CnzGg8knJuvLwKeXjg/Xn6AAmV4xC+/5RLKrB1bN6t7CI egG1+ygoe4rxCYcYUfmCkwBPDPYjIFZWrNifJZG7crIqkT29/R/Qjw1FF c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A8BQD2th5V/4sNJK1cgwuBLsttAoEvTAEBAQEBAX6EHgEBAQMBOj8FCwIBCBgeEDIlAgQOBYgnCM0oAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4sphEYzB4MXgRYBBJBrigCLeIhUIoNvb4JDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,518,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="405884578" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2015 15:53:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t33FrRaD031514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:53:28 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.214]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:53:27 -0500 From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" To: Adam Roach Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised Thread-Index: AQHQbh6aSS0x5+50dkGXxuuJANDaDZ07cGgP Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> ,<551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "video-codec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:53:30 -0000 > Adam Roach wrote: > I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements = and evaluation criteria to IESG..." Works for me.=20 Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can r= evisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (curr= ently no supply or demand interest).=20 Mo From nobody Fri Apr 3 11:17:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6EF1ACED4 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w0zwIISkCAJA for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCEA1ACED3 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F01DC1B07; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:17:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PV29rOUdlP-k; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:17:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.252.25.225] (corp.mtv2.mozilla.com [63.245.221.32]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 742CBC1AC0; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 18:17:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:17:43 -0700 From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" , Adam Roach References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> , <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "video-codec@ietf.org" , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:17:46 -0000 Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: >> Adam Roach wrote: >> I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..." > > Works for me. > > Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest). Both sound fine to me. Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? Here's some proposed text: "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a decoder." From nobody Fri Apr 3 13:58:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD121A1B9C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JrDfImDBiKOc for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C28BA1A19FE for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:57:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=291; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428094670; x=1429304270; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=HecQwushFJqWlO86Goq7yLLLU/iKGHWMJYaV4jbu3kE=; b=iLjc2LdNq0Dm2pV20jfv3AtTHx8KtWqkxP8MfKGuBXYAIDfMIMm2XLJy K8lbcemhDZQdaNKZ1/RZVswAj0I2xqE1G5d5A+sLIxZR9oIZl6j1axKKI bmwIChf0w+PsktTkIzKBQkWUM1t7synCQikL+S/pCAGfSqEFOM1+/1BGP g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A8BQAA/h5V/4cNJK1cgwuBLstsAoEqTAEBAQEBAX6EHwEBBDo/EAIBCBgeEDIlAgQOBYgvzQQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXiymERjMHgxeBFgEEkGuKAJRMIoNvb4JDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,519,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="409055957" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2015 20:57:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t33KvnMk002922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:57:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.214]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:57:49 -0500 From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" Thread-Topic: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised Thread-Index: AQHQbh6aSS0x5+50dkGXxuuJANDaDZ07cGgPgAB8IID//9jqZQ== Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:57:49 +0000 Message-ID: <7EF5F5D6-F011-44D0-9191-701E0E7DAED9@cisco.com> References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> ,<551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> ,<551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> In-Reply-To: <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" , Adam Roach , "video-codec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:57:59 -0000 Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: > Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? H= ere's some proposed text: > "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an enco= der and a decoder." Seems reasonable to me.=20 Mo= From nobody Fri Apr 3 15:01:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910E51A1ABB for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GVz9Yxp_0xfg for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0351E1A1AB9 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ierf6 with SMTP id f6so98678868ier.2 for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=88f6DAJZftZGevgEHUi4LAwYflit8bnNphqdipD4ol0=; b=DB2eyJ0rtX0XOe52jMLb/kMd428AiKqOQFR7XhSKi/6HcvKTzg8xTM2bQa2fplOOVs 5ZkVh8F0MwN0fu2asKSf4+0hdBt8YAW//d4nk4wc31Qtp/yLKCwb2fHp9/YTx9mO6v/l nlvtdBmXvpxQndWOdSJvA7DVf8AHpXXpGFb0gk/FLQGtzkjVMLGsS0GziYxNU9+DuzQ/ 8IN5DHzXM9PHFBtn1JL4DgJh+t94YQjcSE3PclBeZA6DZFYX3Uf21aRIm00in6grA+Em b+apoXvfbW9Mgu0pxIMNJV/KUE8PUb+VVDRKtRlOzibdV8IbLATsMm6XW/NPh7Qmlc+G JZ3g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.29.21 with SMTP id d21mr6898310iod.11.1428098469454; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.173.232 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:01:09 -0700 Message-ID: From: Suhas Nandakumar To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140a4faf9e8b00512d9155d Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "video-codec@ietf.org" , Adam Roach , "Mo Zanaty \(mzanaty\)" , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:01:14 -0000 --001a1140a4faf9e8b00512d9155d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: > Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: > >> Adam Roach wrote: >>> I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements >>> and evaluation criteria to IESG..." >>> >> >> Works for me. >> >> Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can >> revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this >> (currently no supply or demand interest). >> > > Both sound fine to me. > > Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? > Here's some proposed text: > > "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an > encoder and a decoder." > > +1 for adding source code ref-impl. > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > --001a1140a4faf9e8b00512d9155d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.= org> wrote:
Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
Adam Roach <adam@n= ostrum.com> wrote:
I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requiremen= ts and evaluation criteria to IESG..."

Works for me.

Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can r= evisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (curr= ently no supply or demand interest).

 Both sound fine to me.

Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? Her= e's some proposed text:

"3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an e= ncoder and a decoder."

=C2=A0 +1 for adding source code ref-impl.
<= div>=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
video-codec@ietf.= org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

--001a1140a4faf9e8b00512d9155d-- From nobody Mon Apr 6 08:35:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2892B1A8A3E for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jr---a0uxk-4 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44D71A8966 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t36FZHQ7003681 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:35:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local Message-ID: <5522A7B5.1000203@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:35:17 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suhas Nandakumar , "Timothy B. Terriberry" References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060109010604010408090306" Archived-At: Cc: Richard Barnes , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "video-codec@ietf.org" , "Mo Zanaty \(mzanaty\)" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:35:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060109010604010408090306 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050103020301030402000601" --------------050103020301030402000601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment. /a On 4/3/15 17:01, Suhas Nandakumar wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry > > wrote: > > Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: > > Adam Roach > wrote: > I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be > "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..." > > > Works for me. > > Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for > now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see > how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest). > > > Both sound fine to me. > > Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference > implementation? Here's some proposed text: > > "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both > an encoder and a decoder." > > +1 for adding source code ref-impl. > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > > --------------050103020301030402000601 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment.

/a

On 4/3/15 17:01, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:
Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..."

Works for me.

Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest).

 Both sound fine to me.

Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? Here's some proposed text:

"3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a decoder."

  +1 for adding source code ref-impl.
 

_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
video-codec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec


--------------050103020301030402000601-- --------------060109010604010408090306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="netvc-charter-02.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netvc-charter-02.txt" T2JqZWN0aXZlcwoKVGhpcyBXRyBpcyBjaGFydGVyZWQgdG8gcHJvZHVjZSBhIGhpZ2gtcXVh bGl0eSB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IG1lZXRzIHRoZQpmb2xsb3dpbmcgY29uZGl0aW9uczoK CjEuIElzIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlIHdpdGggY3VycmVudCB2aWRlbyBjb2RlY3MgaW4gd2lkZXNw cmVhZCB1c2UuCgoyLiBJcyBvcHRpbWl6ZWQgZm9yIHVzZSBpbiBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSB3ZWIg YXBwbGljYXRpb25zLgoKMy4gSXMgdmlld2VkIGFzIGhhdmluZyBJUFIgbGljZW5zaW5nIHRl cm1zIHRoYXQgYWxsb3cgaXQgdG8gYmUgd2lkZWx5CmltcGxlbWVudGVkIGFuZCBkZXBsb3ll ZC4KClRvIGVsYWJvcmF0ZSwgdGhpcyB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgY29t bWVyY2lhbGx5IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRvCmltcGxlbWVudCBieSBiZWluZyBjb21wZXRpdGl2 ZSB3aXRoIHRoZSB2aWRlbyBjb2RlY3MgaW4gd2lkZXNwcmVhZCB1c2UgYXQgdGhlCnRpbWUg aXQgaXMgZmluYWxpemVkLgoKVGhpcyB2aWRlbyBjb2RlYyB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgb3B0 aW1pemVkIGZvciB0aGUgcmVhbC13b3JsZCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mCnRoZSBwdWJsaWMsIGJl c3QtZWZmb3J0IEludGVybmV0LiBJdCBzaG91bGQgaW5jbHVkZSwgYnV0IG1heSBub3QgYmUg bGltaXRlZAp0bywgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBmYXN0IGFuZCBmbGV4aWJsZSBj b25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgYW5kIHJhdGUKYWRhcHRhdGlvbiwgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8g cXVpY2tseSBqb2luIGJyb2FkY2FzdCBzdHJlYW1zIGFuZCB0aGUgYWJpbGl0eSB0bwpiZSBv cHRpbWl6ZWQgZm9yIGNhcHR1cmVzIG9mIGNvbnRlbnQgdHlwaWNhbGx5IHNoYXJlZCBpbiBp bnRlcmFjdGl2ZQpjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucy4KClRoZSBvYmplY3RpdmUgaXMgdG8gcHJvZHVj ZSBhIHZpZGVvIGNvZGVjIHRoYXQgY2FuIGJlIGltcGxlbWVudGVkLApkaXN0cmlidXRlZCwg YW5kIGRlcGxveWVkIGJ5IG9wZW4gc291cmNlIGFuZCBjbG9zZWQgc291cmNlIHNvZnR3YXJl IGFzIHdlbGwgYXMKaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgaW4gc3BlY2lhbGl6ZWQgaGFyZHdhcmUuCgpUaGUg V0cgd2lsbCBwcmVmZXIgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBvciB0b29scyB3aGVyZSB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdmVy aWZpYWJsZSByZWFzb25zIHRvCmJlbGlldmUgdGhleSBhcmUgUkYgb3ZlciBhbGdvcml0aG1z IG9yIHRvb2xzIHdoZXJlIHRoZXJlIGlzIFJGIHVuY2VydGFpbnR5IG9yCmtub3duIGFjdGl2 ZSBJUFIgY2xhaW1zIHdpdGggcm95YWx0eSBsaWFiaWxpdHkgcG90ZW50aWFsLiBUaGUgY29k ZWMKc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiB3aWxsIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoeSBpdCBiZWxpZXZlcyB0aGF0IGVh Y2ggcGFydCBpcyBsaWtlbHkgdG8gYmUgUkYsCndoaWNoIHdpbGwgaGVscCBhZG9wdGlvbiBv ZiB0aGUgY29kZWMuIFRoaXMgY2FuIGluY2x1ZGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyB0byBvbGQKcHJpb3Ig YXJ0IGFuZC9vciBwYXRlbnQgcmVzZWFyY2ggaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uCgpQcm9jZXNzCgpUaGUg Y29yZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgZm9yIHN1Y2ggYSBjb2RlYyBpbmNsdWRl LCBidXQgYXJlIG5vdApuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBsaW1pdGVkIHRvLCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOgoK MS4gSGlnaCBjb21wcmVzc2lvbiBlZmZpY2llbmN5IHRoYXQgaXMgY29tcGV0aXRpdmUgd2l0 aCBleGlzdGluZyBwb3B1bGFyIHZpZGVvCmNvZGVjcy4KCjIuIFJlYXNvbmFibGUgY29tcHV0 YXRpb25hbCBjb21wbGV4aXR5IHRoYXQgcGVybWl0cyByZWFsLXRpbWUgb3BlcmF0aW9uIG9u CmV4aXN0aW5nLCBwb3B1bGFyIGhhcmR3YXJlLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgbW9iaWxlIGRldmljZXMs IGFuZCBlZmZpY2llbnQKaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gaW4gbmV3IGhhcmR3YXJlIGRlc2lnbnMu CgozLiBVc2UgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgcmVhbC10aW1lIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucywgc3VjaCBh cyBwb2ludC10by1wb2ludCB2aWRlbwpjYWxscywgbXVsdGktcGFydHkgdmlkZW8gY29uZmVy ZW5jaW5nLCB0ZWxlcHJlc2VuY2UsIHRlbGVvcGVyYXRpb24sIGFuZAppbi1nYW1lIHZpZGVv IGNoYXQuCgo0LiBSZXNpbGllbnQgaW4gdGhlIHJlYWwtd29ybGQgdHJhbnNwb3J0IGNvbmRp dGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIEludGVybmV0LCBzdWNoIGFzCnRoZSBmbGV4aWJpbGl0eSB0byByYXBp ZGx5IHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gY2hhbmdpbmcgYmFuZHdpZHRoIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgbG9z cwpyYXRlcywgZXRjLgoKNS4gSW50ZWdyYXRhYmxlIHdpdGggY29tbW9uIEludGVybmV0IGFw cGxpY2F0aW9ucyBhbmQgV2ViIEFQSXMgKGUuZy4sIHRoZQpIVE1MNSA8dmlkZW8+IHRhZyBh bmQgV2ViUlRDIEFQSSwgbGl2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcsIGFkYXB0aXZlIHN0cmVhbWluZywgYW5k CmNvbW1vbiBtZWRpYS1yZWxhdGVkIEFQSXMpIHdpdGhvdXQgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIGFueSBw YXJ0aWN1bGFyIEFQSS4KClRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhlIGlt cGFjdHMgaXRzIGRlY2lzaW9ucyBoYXZlIG9uIHRoZQplZmZpY2llbmN5IG9mIHRyYW5zY29k aW5nIHRvIGFuZCBmcm9tIG90aGVyIGV4aXN0aW5nIHZpZGVvIGNvZGVjcy4KClRoZSB3b3Jr aW5nIGdyb3VwIHNoYWxsIGhlZWQgdGhlIHByZWZlcmVuY2Ugc3RhdGVkIGluIEJDUCA3OTog IkluIGdlbmVyYWwsCklFVEYgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgcHJlZmVyIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyB3 aXRoIG5vIGtub3duIElQUiBjbGFpbXMgb3IsIGZvcgp0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgd2l0aCBjbGFp bXMgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGVtLCBhbiBvZmZlciBvZiByb3lhbHR5LWZyZWUgbGljZW5zaW5nLiIK VGhpcyBwcmVmZXJlbmNlIGNhbm5vdCBndWFyYW50ZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCB3aWxsIHByb2R1Y2UgYW4gSVBSCnVuZW5jdW1iZXJlZCBjb2RlYy4KCgpOb24tR29hbHMK Ckl0IGlzIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgbm90IGEgZ29hbCBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB0byBw cm9kdWNlIGEgY29kZWMgdGhhdCB3aWxsCmJlIG1hbmRhdGVkIGZvciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlv biBhY3Jvc3MgdGhlIGVudGlyZSBJRVRGIG9yIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eS4KCkJhc2Vk IG9uIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwJ3MgYW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgdGhlIGRlc2lnbiBzcGFjZSwg dGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAKbWlnaHQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoYXQgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gcHJv ZHVjZSBhIGNvZGVjIHdpdGggbXVsdGlwbGUgbW9kZXMgb2YKb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgV0cg bWF5IHByb2R1Y2UgYSBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IGlzIGhpZ2hseSBjb25maWd1cmFibGUsIG9wZXJh dGluZwppbiBtYW55IGRpZmZlcmVudCBtb2RlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHNtb290 aGx5IGJlIGV4dGVuZGVkIHdpdGggbmV3Cm1vZGVzIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuCgoKQ29sbGFi b3JhdGlvbgoKSW4gY29tcGxldGluZyBpdHMgd29yaywgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2ls bCBsaWFpc2Ugd2l0aCBvdGhlciByZWxldmFudCBJRVRGCndvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzIGFuZCBT RE9zLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgUEFZTE9BRCwgUk1DQVQsIFJUQ1dFQiwgTU1VU0lDLCBhbmQgb3Ro ZXIKSUVURiBXR3MgdGhhdCBtYWtlIHVzZSBvZiBvciBoYW5kbGUgbmVnb3RpYXRpb24gb2Yg Y29kZWNzOyBXM0Mgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMKaW5jbHVkaW5nIEhUTUwsIERldmljZSBBUElz IGFuZCBXZWJSVEM7IGFuZCBJVFUtVCAoU3R1ZHkgZ3JvdXAgMTYpOyBJU08vSUVDCihKVEMx L1NDMjkgV0cxMSk7IDNHUFAgKFNBNCk7IGFuZCBKQ1QtVkMuCgpJdCBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0 aGF0IGFuIG9wZW4gc291cmNlIHJlZmVyZW5jZSB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBjb2RlYyB3aWxs IGJlCmRldmVsb3BlZCBpbiBwYXJhbGxlbCB3aXRoIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwLgoKVGhl IFdHIHdpbGwgYWNjZXB0IGFuZCBjb25zaWRlciBpbiBpdHMgZGVjaXNpb24gcHJvY2VzcyBp bnB1dCByZWNlaXZlZCBmcm9tCmV4dGVybmFsIHBhcnRpZXMgY29uY2VybmluZyBJUFIgcmlz ayBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggcHJvcG9zZWQgYWxnb3JpdGhtcy4KCgpEZWxpdmVyYWJsZXMK CjEuIEEgc2V0IG9mIHRlY2huaWNhbCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgYW5kIGV2YWx1YXRpb24gY3Jp dGVyaWEuIFRoZSBXRyBtYXkgY2hvb3NlCnRvIHB1cnN1ZSBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGVz ZSBpbiBhbiBSRkMgaWYgaXQgZGVlbXMgdGhhdCB0byBiZSBiZW5lZmljaWFsLgoKMi4gUHJv cG9zZWQgU3RhbmRhcmQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBhbiBlbmNvZGVkIGJpdCBzdHJlYW0g YW5kIGRlY29kZXIKb3BlcmF0aW9uIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBub3JtYXRpdmUgZm9ybWF0cyBhbmQg YWxnb3JpdGhtcyBhcmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIEVuZ2xpc2gKdGV4dCBhbmQgbm90IGFzIGNv ZGUuCgozLiBTb3VyY2UgY29kZSBmb3IgYSByZWZlcmVuY2UgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gdGhh dCBpbmNsdWRlcyBib3RoIGFuIGVuY29kZXIKYW5kIGEgZGVjb2Rlci4KCjQuIFNwZWNpZmlj YXRpb24gb2YgYSBzdG9yYWdlIGZvcm1hdCBmb3IgZmlsZSB0cmFuc2ZlciBvZiB0aGUgZW5j b2RlZCB2aWRlbyBhcwphbiBlbGVtZW50YXJ5IHN0cmVhbSBjb21wYXRpYmxlIHdpdGggZXhp c3RpbmcsIHBvcHVsYXIgY29udGFpbmVyIGZvcm1hdHMgdG8Kc3VwcG9ydCBub24taW50ZXJh Y3RpdmUgKEhUVFApIHN0cmVhbWluZywgaW5jbHVkaW5nIGxpdmUgZW5jb2RpbmcgYW5kIGJv dGgKcHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUgYW5kIGxhcmdlLWNodW5rIGRvd25sb2Fkcy4gVGhlIFdHIHdpbGwg bm90IGRldmVsb3AgYSBuZXcgY29udGFpbmVyCmZvcm1hdC4KCjUuIEEgY29sbGVjdGlvbiBv ZiB0ZXN0IHJlc3VsdHMsIGVpdGhlciBmcm9tIHRlc3RzIGNvbmR1Y3RlZCBieSB0aGUgd29y a2luZwpncm91cCBvciBtYWRlIHB1YmxpY2x5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBlbHNld2hlcmUsIGNoYXJh Y3Rlcml6aW5nIHRoZSBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBvZgp0aGUgY29kZWMuIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQg c2hhbGwgYmUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbC4KCgpHb2FscyBhbmQgTWlsZXN0b25lcwoKVEJEICBS ZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgYW5kIGV2YWx1YXRpb24gY3JpdGVyaWEgdG8gSUVTRywgaWYgdGhlIFdH IHNvIGNob29zZXMKICAgICAoSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCkKClRCRCAgU3VibWl0IGNvZGVjIHNw ZWNpZmljYXRpb24gdG8gSUVTRyAoU3RhbmRhcmRzIFRyYWNrKQoKVEJEICBTdWJtaXQgcmVm ZXJlbmNlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgKEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwpCgpUQkQgIFN1 Ym1pdCBzdG9yYWdlIGZvcm1hdCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgKFN0YW5kYXJkcyBU cmFjaykKClRCRCAgVGVzdGluZyBkb2N1bWVudCB0byBJRVNHIChJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsKQoK --------------060109010604010408090306 Content-Type: text/html; name="netvc-charter-diffs-01-02.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netvc-charter-diffs-01-02.html" PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PHRpdGxlPndkaWZmIG5ldHZjLWNoYXJ0ZXItMDEudHh0IG5ldHZjLWNo YXJ0ZXItMDIudHh0PC90aXRsZT48L2hlYWQ+PGJvZHk+CjxwcmU+Ck9iamVjdGl2ZXMKClRo aXMgV0cgaXMgY2hhcnRlcmVkIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBoaWdoLXF1YWxpdHkgdmlkZW8gY29k ZWMgdGhhdCBtZWV0cyB0aGUKZm9sbG93aW5nIGNvbmRpdGlvbnM6CgoxLiBJcyBjb21wZXRp dGl2ZSB3aXRoIGN1cnJlbnQgdmlkZW8gY29kZWNzIGluIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQgdXNlLgoKMi4g SXMgb3B0aW1pemVkIGZvciB1c2UgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgd2ViIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucy4K CjMuIElzIHZpZXdlZCBhcyBoYXZpbmcgSVBSIGxpY2Vuc2luZyB0ZXJtcyB0aGF0IGFsbG93 IGl0IHRvIGJlIHdpZGVseQppbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBhbmQgZGVwbG95ZWQuCgpUbyBlbGFib3Jh dGUsIHRoaXMgdmlkZW8gY29kZWMgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNvbW1lcmNpYWxseSBpbnRl cmVzdGluZyB0bwppbXBsZW1lbnQgYnkgYmVpbmcgY29tcGV0aXRpdmUgd2l0aCB0aGUgdmlk ZW8gY29kZWNzIGluIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQgdXNlIGF0IHRoZQp0aW1lIGl0IGlzIGZpbmFsaXpl ZC4KClRoaXMgdmlkZW8gY29kZWMgd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIG9wdGltaXplZCBmb3IgdGhl IHJlYWwtd29ybGQgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBvZgp0aGUgcHVibGljLCBiZXN0LWVmZm9ydCBJbnRl cm5ldC4gSXQgc2hvdWxkIGluY2x1ZGUsIGJ1dCBtYXkgbm90IGJlIGxpbWl0ZWQKdG8sIHRo ZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgZmFzdCBhbmQgZmxleGlibGUgY29uZ2VzdGlvbiBjb250 cm9sIGFuZCByYXRlCmFkYXB0YXRpb24sIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHF1aWNrbHkgam9pbiBi cm9hZGNhc3Qgc3RyZWFtcyBhbmQgdGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8KYmUgb3B0aW1pemVkIGZvciBj YXB0dXJlcyBvZiBjb250ZW50IHR5cGljYWxseSBzaGFyZWQgaW4gaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUKY29t bXVuaWNhdGlvbnMuCgpUaGUgb2JqZWN0aXZlIGlzIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSB2aWRlbyBjb2Rl YyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCwKZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIGFuZCBkZXBsb3llZCBi eSBvcGVuIHNvdXJjZSBhbmQgY2xvc2VkIHNvdXJjZSBzb2Z0d2FyZSBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzCmlt cGxlbWVudGVkIGluIHNwZWNpYWxpemVkIGhhcmR3YXJlLgoKVGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgcHJlZmVy IGFsZ29yaXRobXMgb3IgdG9vbHMgd2hlcmUgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHZlcmlmaWFibGUgcmVhc29u cyB0bwpiZWxpZXZlIHRoZXkgYXJlIFJGIG92ZXIgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyBvciB0b29scyB3aGVy ZSB0aGVyZSBpcyBSRiB1bmNlcnRhaW50eSBvcgprbm93biBhY3RpdmUgSVBSIGNsYWltcyB3 aXRoIHJveWFsdHkgbGlhYmlsaXR5IHBvdGVudGlhbC4gVGhlIGNvZGVjCnNwZWNpZmljYXRp b24gd2lsbCBkb2N1bWVudCB3aHkgaXQgYmVsaWV2ZXMgdGhhdCBlYWNoIHBhcnQgaXMgbGlr ZWx5IHRvIGJlIFJGLAp3aGljaCB3aWxsIGhlbHAgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGNvZGVjLiBU aGlzIGNhbiBpbmNsdWRlIHJlZmVyZW5jZXMgdG8gb2xkCnByaW9yIGFydCBhbmQvb3IgcGF0 ZW50IHJlc2VhcmNoIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLgoKUHJvY2VzcwoKVGhlIGNvcmUgdGVjaG5pY2Fs IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIGZvciBzdWNoIGEgY29kZWMgaW5jbHVkZSwgYnV0IGFyZSBub3QK bmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgbGltaXRlZCB0bywgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoKCjEuIEhpZ2ggY29tcHJl c3Npb24gZWZmaWNpZW5jeSB0aGF0IGlzIGNvbXBldGl0aXZlIHdpdGggZXhpc3RpbmcgcG9w dWxhciB2aWRlbwpjb2RlY3MuCgoyLiBSZWFzb25hYmxlIGNvbXB1dGF0aW9uYWwgY29tcGxl eGl0eSB0aGF0IHBlcm1pdHMgcmVhbC10aW1lIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBvbgpleGlzdGluZywgcG9w dWxhciBoYXJkd2FyZSwgaW5jbHVkaW5nIG1vYmlsZSBkZXZpY2VzLCBhbmQgZWZmaWNpZW50 CmltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGluIG5ldyBoYXJkd2FyZSBkZXNpZ25zLgoKMy4gVXNlIGluIGlu dGVyYWN0aXZlIHJlYWwtdGltZSBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMsIHN1Y2ggYXMgcG9pbnQtdG8tcG9p bnQgdmlkZW8KY2FsbHMsIG11bHRpLXBhcnR5IHZpZGVvIGNvbmZlcmVuY2luZywgdGVsZXBy ZXNlbmNlLCB0ZWxlb3BlcmF0aW9uLCBhbmQKaW4tZ2FtZSB2aWRlbyBjaGF0LgoKNC4gUmVz aWxpZW50IGluIHRoZSByZWFsLXdvcmxkIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBjb25kaXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBJ bnRlcm5ldCwgc3VjaCBhcwp0aGUgZmxleGliaWxpdHkgdG8gcmFwaWRseSByZXNwb25kIHRv IGNoYW5naW5nIGJhbmR3aWR0aCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgYW5kIGxvc3MKcmF0ZXMsIGV0Yy4K CjUuIEludGVncmF0YWJsZSB3aXRoIGNvbW1vbiBJbnRlcm5ldCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgYW5k IFdlYiBBUElzIChlLmcuLCB0aGUKSFRNTDUgJmx0O3ZpZGVvJmd0OyB0YWcgYW5kIFdlYlJU QyBBUEksIGxpdmUgc3RyZWFtaW5nLCBhZGFwdGl2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcsIGFuZApjb21tb24g bWVkaWEtcmVsYXRlZCBBUElzKSB3aXRob3V0IGRlcGVuZGluZyBvbiBhbnkgcGFydGljdWxh ciBBUEkuCgpUaGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoZSBpbXBhY3RzIGl0 cyBkZWNpc2lvbnMgaGF2ZSBvbiB0aGUKZWZmaWNpZW5jeSBvZiB0cmFuc2NvZGluZyB0byBh bmQgZnJvbSBvdGhlciBleGlzdGluZyB2aWRlbyBjb2RlY3MuCgpUaGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCBzaGFsbCBoZWVkIHRoZSBwcmVmZXJlbmNlIHN0YXRlZCBpbiBCQ1AgNzk6ICJJbiBnZW5l cmFsLApJRVRGIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzIHByZWZlciB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgd2l0aCBubyBr bm93biBJUFIgY2xhaW1zIG9yLCBmb3IKdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIHdpdGggY2xhaW1zIGFnYWlu c3QgdGhlbSwgYW4gb2ZmZXIgb2Ygcm95YWx0eS1mcmVlIGxpY2Vuc2luZy4iClRoaXMgcHJl ZmVyZW5jZSBjYW5ub3QgZ3VhcmFudGVlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCBw cm9kdWNlIGFuIElQUgp1bmVuY3VtYmVyZWQgY29kZWMuCgpOb24tR29hbHMKCkl0IGlzIGV4 cGxpY2l0bHkgbm90IGEgZ29hbCBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB0byBwcm9kdWNlIGEg Y29kZWMgdGhhdCB3aWxsCmJlIG1hbmRhdGVkIGZvciBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBhY3Jvc3Mg dGhlIGVudGlyZSBJRVRGIG9yIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eS4KCkJhc2VkIG9uIHRoZSB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwJ3MgYW5hbHlzaXMgb2YgdGhlIGRlc2lnbiBzcGFjZSwgdGhlIHdvcmtp bmcgZ3JvdXAKbWlnaHQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoYXQgaXQgbmVlZHMgdG8gcHJvZHVjZSBhIGNv ZGVjIHdpdGggbXVsdGlwbGUgbW9kZXMgb2YKb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGUgV0cgbWF5IHByb2R1 Y2UgYSBjb2RlYyB0aGF0IGlzIGhpZ2hseSBjb25maWd1cmFibGUsIG9wZXJhdGluZwppbiBt YW55IGRpZmZlcmVudCBtb2RlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHNtb290aGx5IGJlIGV4 dGVuZGVkIHdpdGggbmV3Cm1vZGVzIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUuCgpDb2xsYWJvcmF0aW9uCgpJ biBjb21wbGV0aW5nIGl0cyB3b3JrLCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGxpYWlzZSB3 aXRoIG90aGVyIHJlbGV2YW50IElFVEYKd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgYW5kIFNET3MsIGluY2x1 ZGluZyBQQVlMT0FELCBSTUNBVCwgUlRDV0VCLCBNTVVTSUMsIGFuZCBvdGhlcgpJRVRGIFdH cyB0aGF0IG1ha2UgdXNlIG9mIG9yIGhhbmRsZSBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiBvZiBjb2RlY3M7IFcz QyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwcwppbmNsdWRpbmcgSFRNTCwgRGV2aWNlIEFQSXMgYW5kIFdlYlJU QzsgYW5kIElUVS1UIChTdHVkeSBncm91cCAxNik7IElTTy9JRUMKKEpUQzEvU0MyOSBXRzEx KTsgM0dQUCAoU0E0KTsgYW5kIEpDVC1WQy4KCkl0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoYXQgYW4gb3Bl biBzb3VyY2UgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGNvZGVjIHdpbGwgYmUKZGV2ZWxv cGVkIGluIHBhcmFsbGVsIHdpdGggdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAuCgpUaGUgV0cgd2lsbCBh Y2NlcHQgYW5kIGNvbnNpZGVyIGluIGl0cyBkZWNpc2lvbiBwcm9jZXNzIGlucHV0IHJlY2Vp dmVkIGZyb20KZXh0ZXJuYWwgcGFydGllcyBjb25jZXJuaW5nIElQUiByaXNrIGFzc29jaWF0 ZWQgd2l0aCBwcm9wb3NlZCBhbGdvcml0aG1zLgoKRGVsaXZlcmFibGVzCgoxLiBBIHNldCBv ZiB0ZWNobmljYWwgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBldmFsdWF0aW9uIGNyaXRlcmlhLiBUaGUg V0cgbWF5IGNob29zZQp0byBwdXJzdWUgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlc2UgaW4gYW4gUkZD IGlmIGl0IGRlZW1zIHRoYXQgdG8gYmUgYmVuZWZpY2lhbC4KCjIuIFByb3Bvc2VkIFN0YW5k YXJkIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gb2YgYW4gZW5jb2RlZCBiaXQgc3RyZWFtIGFuZCBkZWNvZGVy Cm9wZXJhdGlvbiB3aGVyZSB0aGUgbm9ybWF0aXZlIGZvcm1hdHMgYW5kIGFsZ29yaXRobXMg YXJlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiBFbmdsaXNoCnRleHQgYW5kIG5vdCBhcyBjb2RlLgoKMy4gPHU+ PHN0cm9uZz48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0nZ3JlZW4nPlNvdXJjZSBjb2RlIGZvciBhIHJlZmVyZW5j ZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiB0aGF0IGluY2x1ZGVzIGJvdGggYW4gZW5jb2RlcgphbmQgYSBk ZWNvZGVyLgoKNC48L2ZvbnQ+PC9zdHJvbmc+PC91PiBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIG9mIGEgc3Rv cmFnZSBmb3JtYXQgZm9yIGZpbGUgdHJhbnNmZXIgb2YgdGhlIGVuY29kZWQgdmlkZW8gYXMK YW4gZWxlbWVudGFyeSBzdHJlYW0gY29tcGF0aWJsZSB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nLCBwb3B1bGFy IGNvbnRhaW5lciBmb3JtYXRzIHRvCnN1cHBvcnQgbm9uLWludGVyYWN0aXZlIChIVFRQKSBz dHJlYW1pbmcsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBsaXZlIGVuY29kaW5nIGFuZCBib3RoCnByb2dyZXNzaXZl IGFuZCBsYXJnZS1jaHVuayBkb3dubG9hZHMuIFRoZSBXRyB3aWxsIG5vdCBkZXZlbG9wIGEg bmV3IGNvbnRhaW5lcgpmb3JtYXQuCgo8c3RyaWtlPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSdyZWQnPjQuPC9m b250Pjwvc3RyaWtlPgoKPHU+PHN0cm9uZz48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0nZ3JlZW4nPjUuPC9mb250 Pjwvc3Ryb25nPjwvdT4gQSBjb2xsZWN0aW9uIG9mIHRlc3QgcmVzdWx0cywgZWl0aGVyIGZy b20gdGVzdHMgY29uZHVjdGVkIGJ5IHRoZSB3b3JraW5nCmdyb3VwIG9yIG1hZGUgcHVibGlj bHkgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGVsc2V3aGVyZSwgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXppbmcgdGhlIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNl IG9mCnRoZSBjb2RlYy4gVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzaGFsbCBiZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsLgoK R29hbHMgYW5kIE1pbGVzdG9uZXMKClRCRCAgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZv bnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz5hbmQgZXZhbHVhdGlvbiBjcml0ZXJpYTwvZm9udD48L3N0cm9u Zz48L3U+IHRvIElFU0csIGlmIHRoZSBXRyBzbyBjaG9vc2VzCiAgICAgKEluZm9ybWF0aW9u YWwpCgpUQkQgIFN1Ym1pdCBjb2RlYyBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIElFU0cgKFN0YW5kYXJk cyBUcmFjaykKClRCRCAgU3VibWl0IDx1PjxzdHJvbmc+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9J2dyZWVuJz5y ZWZlcmVuY2UgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gdG8gSUVTRyAoSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCkKClRCRCAg U3VibWl0PC9mb250Pjwvc3Ryb25nPjwvdT4gc3RvcmFnZSBmb3JtYXQgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlv biB0byBJRVNHIChTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJhY2spCgpUQkQgIFRlc3RpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnQgdG8g SUVTRyAoSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCkKPC9wcmU+CjwvYm9keT48L2h0bWw+Cg== --------------060109010604010408090306-- From nobody Fri Apr 10 14:17:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389CA1A8A1C for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOQUozjil3_d for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A23991A8A0B for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D1E20C32 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:17:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=tHmkk fEXflImmsEGNjbPbdnyZSg=; b=4N7JRy7+E+aKlnAjGNwrh1D7tDlTc5xL0+6qp JFlLSkCixULdmWurPikDufRsxaUgyyHBOeJiWwIu19HVpZYT4NmcbLTzojmeG9jH i8OHNEAMApHf+xmpoHrQyG4l7gZ9HV+MNynwWwtyvWsw3wvaGgtebRD2tMWnOa2+ 14ppEc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=tHmkkfEXflImmsEGNjbPbdnyZSg=; b=B7pZE rGsbj43Uyj0EyHFqJrwAyVtfK2xgi7/QkTDHA4h9Jsg/CSNxFSfrdr13Vuuodorw hcHP4Ihxc74I76joTRToeXS7wzgeANozBnBLeHUOyv9aDJeEaG7pFWH+47ebh1Wn N/9FCQXYgqJI/L9yxdL2f1qWuNTbSMrTnCywf0= X-Sasl-enc: yiRzc0Wy3SVRRFPjwj3veZZ7vRkm+jy1699XsUHkSstM 1428700645 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8813.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.161]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D3A1D68016E; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_04F4149B-1A42-44D7-B59D-00DD0C0846D7" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <5522A7B5.1000203@nostrum.com> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:17:22 -0700 Message-Id: References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> <551EAA2C.3020308@nostrum.com> <551ED947.2060005@xiph.org> <5522A7B5.1000203@nostrum.com> To: Adam Roach X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" , Richard Barnes , Suhas Nandakumar , "Mo Zanaty \(mzanaty\)" , "video-codec@ietf.org" , "Timothy B. Terriberry" Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 21:17:31 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_04F4149B-1A42-44D7-B59D-00DD0C0846D7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all, A couple of nits that should help when this goes out for community = review: OLD where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are RF NEW where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an = RF basis OLD an open source reference version of the codec will be developed in = parallel with the working group NEW an open source reference version of the codec will be developed in = parallel with the working group=92s work OLD 3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an = encoder and a decoder. NEW 3. Source code for a reference implementation (documented in an = informational document) that includes both an encoder and a decoder. Unless folks object to these changes, I=92ll put this into the = datatracker and get it moving through the approval process. Alissa On Apr 6, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most = importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to = satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new = deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment. >=20 > /a >=20 > On 4/3/15 17:01, Suhas Nandakumar wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry = wrote: >> Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: >> Adam Roach wrote: >> I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be = "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..." >>=20 >> Works for me. >>=20 >> Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We = can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles = this (currently no supply or demand interest). >>=20 >> Both sound fine to me. >>=20 >> Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference = implementation? Here's some proposed text: >>=20 >> "3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an = encoder and a decoder." >>=20 >> +1 for adding source code ref-impl. >> =20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> video-codec mailing list >> video-codec@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec >>=20 >=20 > = ____________________= ___________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec --Apple-Mail=_04F4149B-1A42-44D7-B59D-00DD0C0846D7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Hi all,

A couple of = nits that should help when this goes out for community = review:

OLD
where there are = verifiable reasons to believe they are RF
NEW
where = there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF = basis

OLD
an open source reference = version of the codec will be developed in parallel with the working = group
NEW
an open source reference version of the = codec will be developed in parallel with the working group=92s = work

OLD
3. Source code for a = reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a = decoder.
NEW
3. Source code for a reference = implementation (documented in an informational document) that includes = both an encoder and a decoder.

Unless folks = object to these changes, I=92ll put this into the datatracker and get it = moving through the approval = process.

Alissa

On Apr 6, = 2015, at 8:35 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> = wrote:

=20 =20
Okay, there seems to be support here for a new deliverable (most importantly, from the people who will likely be doing the work to satisfy the deliverable). The attached charter incorporates this new deliverable, as well as the clarification based on Mo's earlier comment.

/a

On 4/3/15 17:01, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:
Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
I propose clarifying by changing the first milestone to be "Requirements and evaluation criteria to IESG..."

Works for me.

Also fine to keep the final milestone for the testing doc for now. We can revisit once there, which also gives time to see how opus handles this (currently no supply or demand interest).

 Both sound fine to me.

Any objection to adding the deliverable for a reference implementation? Here's some proposed text:

"3. Source code for a reference implementation that includes both an encoder and a decoder."

  +1 for adding source code ref-impl.
 

_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
video-codec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec


= <netvc-charter-02.txt><netvc-charter-diffs-01-= 02.html>_______________________________________________
video= -codec mailing list
video-codec@ietf.org
https://w= ww.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

= = --Apple-Mail=_04F4149B-1A42-44D7-B59D-00DD0C0846D7-- From nobody Mon Apr 13 16:12:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E85D1B2B04 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzy52Vt8iGLo for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU004-OMC2S18.hotmail.com (blu004-omc2s18.hotmail.com [65.55.111.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4C5B1B2B03 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU436-SMTP198 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S18.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:12:10 -0700 X-TMN: [bcFk1FnTVngVnxbm52h2FbhcbG+W32jI] X-Originating-Email: [coverdale@sympatico.ca] Message-ID: From: Paul Coverdale To: "'Adam Roach'" , References: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <551C3C81.40705@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:12:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdBsq/idSkgL/zkpT0OUb5fBHIafswJjrG7A Content-Language: en-us X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2015 23:12:09.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[446CE9B0:01D0763F] Archived-At: Cc: 'Richard Barnes' , rai-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:12:12 -0000 Although it's perhaps implicit, it may be worthwhile to explicitly state = in item 1. of the core technical considerations that not only should = high compression efficiency be competitive with existing popular video = codecs, but the resulting video quality should also be competitive. In = other words, the goal is to maximize both. ...Paul >-----Original Message----- >From: video-codec [mailto:video-codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Adam Roach >Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:44 PM >To: video-codec@ietf.org >Cc: Richard Barnes; rai-ads@tools.ietf.org >Subject: [video-codec] Proposed Charter, revised > >[as chair] > >Based on the discussions at the face-to-face meeting in Dallas, I have >attached a revised charter proposal for the proposed working group. The >changes between the version presented during the BOF and this one are >detailed in the attached HTML file. > >Any comments on the attached proposed charter, including a simple >affirmation that you believe that it is acceptable in its current form, >would be helpful. > >Thanks! > >/a From nobody Mon Apr 20 15:27:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFCC1B3346; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X5OiZlaHBtdZ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B231B3347; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:27:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:27:42 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:27:49 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The IESG has discussed this issue on last week's informal call, and we have asked the IAOC legal committee to comment. We have some response so far, and we're waiting for Jorge to weigh in. > The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable > reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or > tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with > royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why > it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption > of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent > research information. We are pretty explicit, in general, that working groups do NOT evaluate patents and other intellectual property, and there are good reasons for that. Some companies would have problems with their employees participating in such discussions. Discussions of that nature can put people into positions where they become aware of patents they otherwise would not, and that their employers would prefer that they didn't. I think that at the very least, we should loop the IAOC legal committee and/or Jorge into this, and make sure they are/he is OK with having anything about patent research information in a working group charter. I know that many companies do not allow their employees to do patent searches and evaluations without explicit permission. I worry that such a discussion will either make it impossible for some people to participate, or cause some people's participation to unintentionally violate their employers' policies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I certainly support this charter. I have two concerns, one minor, one not so minor. The not-so-minor one is above, in the "discuss" box. The minor one is here: << 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. >> I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in how many documents of what sort. Thanks! Related to that: I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document. From nobody Mon Apr 20 16:51:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CDD1B352F; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJ1Qc_g-7oW7; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 693BD1B352E; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so118813097wid.0; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fc4JUuZW+MukUylKgYV5PmJde1o6uurAoY6GIN0z/Ak=; b=F6FO940Vu45JShCWEwofX+qOH7bGOs408aHswSQ6CG709e3JC19VrFdBMaw2LQrn9v M4DpT+gRkXpkY4iAi356byWninqM+sd/eLGVE9UQJlfrbd29QUeJjjlhbBjHNz9UmCH7 GKvuokVj1qI7HvGuy7B218I+b1VW67GRznwuLcAGLl2W+M7wWJy6e97Cxr2NQNkpx5fd naYp47KVnbACraKjM8OcqCKEld8BIWE+Qy+OhmjKMtVKYNpOY021YNlfPKO4eAmUVghY JKiA8vd9K8Y8qhOLu4aBy/rcJrUEjwex33cwV3Vvztn3ZOfMd1MroCODM9t+1CK3soli UtZg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.74.104 with SMTP id s8mr570216wiv.40.1429573894198; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.233.233 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ted Hardie To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c804a24dc280514309c49 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:51:39 -0000 --f46d043c804a24dc280514309c49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Barry, The charter says: The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent research information. =E2=80=8BYou seem to have two issues: one being that some individuals may = not be able to participate because patent searches or demonstrations of prior art may be required and these are forbidden to them; the other being that the IETF as a body should not make declarations about the IPR status=E2=80=8B o= f a piece of work. Even if the working group were to have no formal analysis or declaration of the IPR status of particular approaches in its output, the goal of this work would be frustrated if it were forbidden from talking on its mailing list about the participants' understandings of the IPR relevant to their or others' contributions. That might include the results of those participants' patent searches or other experience. Allowing that in the discussion of what methods should be adopted is within our rules as I understand them, as individual participants are making their own decisions on what paths to pursue. This is simply data they may choose to take into account, or not, as they see fit. (Since this might occur in any mailing list working toward a specific technology now, my impression is that someone who wished their employees not to be so exposed would have to direct them not to participate, full stop.) I think that issue is not simply separable from the question of whether the IETF could or should issue an RFC making IPR claims, but it should be separated. Jorge may very well advise the IESG that the IETF cannot or should not draw conclusions on the IPR status of specific methods. But that should not mean, at least in my view, that IETF participants cannot share their own views on those matters on one of our mailing lists. Our openness to participation does not require us to shield potential participants from forbidden knowledge; they have to do that for themselves. My two cents as an individual, regards, Ted On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The IESG has discussed this issue on last week's informal call, and we > have asked the IAOC legal committee to comment. We have some > response so far, and we're waiting for Jorge to weigh in. > > > The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable > > reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms > or > > tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with > > royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why > > it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help > adoption > > of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or > patent > > research information. > > We are pretty explicit, in general, that working groups do NOT > evaluate patents and other intellectual property, and there are good > reasons for that. Some companies would have problems with their > employees participating in such discussions. Discussions of that > nature can put people into positions where they become aware of > patents they otherwise would not, and that their employers would > prefer that they didn't. > > I think that at the very least, we should loop the IAOC legal > committee and/or Jorge into this, and make sure they are/he is OK with > having anything about patent research information in a working group > charter. I know that many companies do not allow their employees to > do patent searches and evaluations without explicit permission. > > I worry that such a discussion will either make it impossible for some > people to participate, or cause some people's participation to > unintentionally violate their employers' policies. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I certainly support this charter. I have two concerns, one minor, one > not so minor. The not-so-minor one is above, in the "discuss" box. > > The minor one is here: > > << > 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the > working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the > performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. > >> > > I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in > terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in > how many documents of what sort. Thanks! > > Related to that: > I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, > I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the > collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or > whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be > happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document. > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > --f46d043c804a24dc280514309c49 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Barry,

The charter say= s:

The WG will prefer algorithms or= tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on = an RF basis over algorithms or tools where there is RF uncertainty or known= active IPR claims with royalty liability potential. The codec specificatio= n will document why it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which wi= ll help adoption of the codec. This can include references to old prior art= and/or patent research information.
=E2=80=8BYou seem to have two issues:=C2=A0 one being that some= individuals may not be able to participate because patent searches or demo= nstrations of prior art may be required and these are forbidden to them; th= e other being that the IETF as a body should not make declarations about th= e IPR status=E2=80=8B of a piece of work.=C2=A0

Eve= n if the working group were to have no formal analysis or declaration of th= e IPR status of particular approaches in its output, the goal of this work = would be frustrated if it were forbidden from talking on its mailing list a= bout the participants' understandings of the IPR relevant to their or o= thers' contributions.=C2=A0 That might include the results of those par= ticipants' patent searches or other experience.=C2=A0 Allowing that in = the discussion of what methods should be adopted is within our rules as I u= nderstand them, as individual participants are making their own decisions o= n what paths to pursue. =C2=A0 This is simply data they may choose to take = into account, or not, as they see fit. (Since this might occur in any maili= ng list working toward a specific technology now, my impression is that som= eone who wished their employees not to be so exposed would have to direct t= hem not to participate, full stop.)

I think that iss= ue is not simply separable from the question of whether the IETF could or s= hould issue an RFC making IPR claims, but it should be separated.=C2=A0 Jor= ge may very well advise the IESG that the IETF cannot or should not draw co= nclusions on the IPR status of specific methods.=C2=A0 But that should not = mean, at least in my view, that IETF participants cannot share their own vi= ews on those matters on one of our mailing lists.=C2=A0 Our openness to par= ticipation does not require us to shield potential participants from forbid= den knowledge; they have to do that for themselves.

= My two cents as an individual,

regards,

Ted


On Mon, Apr 20, = 2015 at 3:27 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>= wrote:
Barry Leiba ha= s entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The IESG has discussed this issue on last week's informal call, and we<= br> have asked the IAOC legal committee to comment.=C2=A0 We have some
response so far, and we're waiting for Jorge to weigh in.

> The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable
> reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or
> tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with > royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why=
> it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help
adoption
> of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or
patent
> research information.

We are pretty explicit, in general, that working groups do NOT
evaluate patents and other intellectual property, and there are good
reasons for that.=C2=A0 Some companies would have problems with their
employees participating in such discussions.=C2=A0 Discussions of that
nature can put people into positions where they become aware of
patents they otherwise would not, and that their employers would
prefer that they didn't.

I think that at the very least, we should loop the IAOC legal
committee and/or Jorge into this, and make sure they are/he is OK with
having anything about patent research information in a working group
charter.=C2=A0 I know that many companies do not allow their employees to do patent searches and evaluations without explicit permission.

I worry that such a discussion will either make it impossible for some
people to participate, or cause some people's participation to
unintentionally violate their employers' policies.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly support this charter.=C2=A0 I have two concerns, one minor, one=
not so minor.=C2=A0 The not-so-minor one is above, in the "discuss&quo= t; box.

The minor one is here:

<<
5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the
working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the
performance of the codec. This document shall be informational.
>>

I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in
how many documents of what sort.=C2=A0 Thanks!

Related to that:
I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5.=C2=A0 Actually,=
I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the
collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or
whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all.=C2=A0 But I'd b= e
happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document.


_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
video-codec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec

--f46d043c804a24dc280514309c49-- From nobody Mon Apr 20 18:25:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58141A026F; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsDJuJBcSyiu; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD45D1A01BA; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so74950454igb.1; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ncIFv9yA69XjSU9Ob5jhbJ+kfH4PWBjn/xWFzDqiPmw=; b=CcyoyywxjsNccNhGCAkUWDv/vdEWnZLHkRqrCj4xkFX71tLW/4xyuukYuGNntyJhls jkiVsido2W62zHQM5vi7Ba5jvArT1Ah/jEUs6pJ4vl/JPoqnEnEVvMQqFaGLmFStBGU9 I2hf+Yt2aoLQP1g9KtOanzCgvzOxjaRPb+T7xYUK+fNmLoZ/E1Y0B/rP7UrM/H3yHVPg 4AB+Ezu6LmsSl68U6/suhiFrNB01lgoGLJF4oQA8Plq6IDMGaGb7rmHWkRS+c8SeGGt6 +YcrKpa4bvT0UHcJr5y1mhm6p9IH9XHpW0tF+8zFsU43783J0Gj0pl8zjktxNOVDSYPz 8txg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.1.47 with SMTP id 15mr25051917igj.40.1429579517238; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:25:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:25:17 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TMC7cD0RHyO3FEn6xoEXj8e_pMQ Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Ted Hardie Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:25:18 -0000 Hey, Ted. > You seem to have two issues: one being that some individuals may not be > able to participate because patent searches or demonstrations of prior art > may be required and these are forbidden to them; the other being that the > IETF as a body should not make declarations about the IPR status of a piece > of work. Yes. > Even if the working group were to have no formal analysis or declaration of > the IPR status of particular approaches in its output, the goal of this work > would be frustrated if it were forbidden from talking on its mailing list > about the participants' understandings of the IPR relevant to their or > others' contributions. That might include the results of those > participants' patent searches or other experience. Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do *not* talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut those discussions down if they happen. I believe that we consider those discussions out of scope for working groups, and that we expect and advise each participant to make her own decision in that regard. Barry From nobody Mon Apr 20 18:35:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984481A1B56 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U22ogIyS7Dt4 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469F11A1B44 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91ED920BE8 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:35:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=EodmFwGoFEbsMfchUev7H3tTJ+E=; b=XKHhJ4 m8h8diyuVJlHFbfUYgzofu/Kx+N0HF5HRY4FJ1G7nOZol9ZhhVElVfcDUwvzkZMk HRUDTBUm3Ys9jYSjSDiSemqEgt15iDIcRM3vqZJwAL8uVmdmBOXDQrjBbB3Wh4Wr z11sItv6UEWV7R3l4BA5cNW6NAGSjVZnhZ2cY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=EodmFwGoFEbsMfc hUev7H3tTJ+E=; b=g7jH+GF3G2oxr/gUg+m86N8j2STV62I1CunLhmovmin8mWK 6twy+cB7uCfpcAP0CwZomuXMUsiutaYINTm0aWH3NGD9JW0UFS/QdoZEOSA054eO FEy10PVZQJx5jMNKNXjBBOAyvCkGGFRlU9poLBPjyXCOO/cC/AR8sjMvoO1A= X-Sasl-enc: 2C1Ya8/JBNkQFlvhg8TW00KIeb1dqSHLlWF8RUOVyOPU 1429580145 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.167]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 95C52C00015; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:35:40 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 01:35:48 -0000 Hi Barry, all, I=92ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come up = with the edits below as a result. Would these address your concerns? OLD The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable=20 reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or=20= tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with=20 royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why=20= it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption=20= of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent=20= research information. NEW In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where = there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF = basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider = information concerning old prior art or the results of research = indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external = parties all the time: The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input received=20= from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed=20 algorithms. Everything else would remain the same. The above edits don=92t 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. Alissa On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Barry Leiba = wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > The IESG has discussed this issue on last week's informal call, and we > have asked the IAOC legal committee to comment. We have some > response so far, and we're waiting for Jorge to weigh in. >=20 >> The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable >> reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms > or >> tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with >> royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document = why >> it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help > adoption >> of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or > patent >> research information. >=20 > We are pretty explicit, in general, that working groups do NOT > evaluate patents and other intellectual property, and there are good > reasons for that. Some companies would have problems with their > employees participating in such discussions. Discussions of that > nature can put people into positions where they become aware of > patents they otherwise would not, and that their employers would > prefer that they didn't. >=20 > I think that at the very least, we should loop the IAOC legal > committee and/or Jorge into this, and make sure they are/he is OK with > having anything about patent research information in a working group > charter. I know that many companies do not allow their employees to > do patent searches and evaluations without explicit permission. >=20 > I worry that such a discussion will either make it impossible for some > people to participate, or cause some people's participation to > unintentionally violate their employers' policies. >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > I certainly support this charter. I have two concerns, one minor, one > not so minor. The not-so-minor one is above, in the "discuss" box. >=20 > The minor one is here: >=20 > << > 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the > working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the > performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. >>>=20 >=20 > I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in > terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in > how many documents of what sort. Thanks! >=20 > Related to that: > I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, > I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the > collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or > whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be > happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec From nobody Mon Apr 20 19:52:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DD01A887C; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60u63jPQIZ7U; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC0601A8876; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iedfl3 with SMTP id fl3so5009901ied.1; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sHLkGZ4V0r3f/Pi/lXaOzUR15uckip7c8JSGlWr0vEo=; b=rce6VN5Nvgj+LKmC8RASE/Tt7Qzvj6lrx3aHOruUjDwECgwmBZ6M8gczd14K3aqC3O Tdl9T1qR1Q/i9Kwt/KnLLLrj+D4J/yCwmIgSaKqpQ/ZlJQHzRL6nQ7461CW73twfST6m ElHeAUij/tDWehxP+K4PGKZMctBqvGM4/33moMAkgrELkuli4hXI2mUReXrwdnBNQ90c lmHXFiW9EmyIsMO47YlQez53FRV+hGpMie0u2swS2yxBoFxp74ZOUbZG6oaxsnKC5LoM Db4mLHDvklXoAL20S/Ue0zJPilMU0w7Np3447sm7OUnwoogI3SQcwL4pnzc1wEUjAzSb SKhA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.15.82 with SMTP id x79mr25970105ioi.75.1429584759364; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:52:39 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2nNTb_pvdNZnFn_ayV3iGF5NO2o Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Alissa Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:52:41 -0000 > I've had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have > come up with the edits below as a result. Would these address > your concerns? They would, indeed. Thanks! Barry From nobody Mon Apr 20 20:20:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20D61A89F5; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:20:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Djm3WhQxGIYi; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBFAF1A89FB; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7366C1FC1; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:20:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0G14lI-75bq; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.47] (50-78-100-113-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.78.100.113]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7180BC1F1C; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5535C1E5.4080104@xiph.org> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:20:05 -0700 From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alissa Cooper , Barry Leiba References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:20:08 -0000 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. From nobody Mon Apr 20 20:30:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEADF1A8966; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8i_t_1hNk8U; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58D91A8919; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgso17 with SMTP id o17so199487079wgs.1; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XUg4LuY+y14fI++9GhNyLfIe42vkavVr6S3VQmkk2NE=; b=EaKRHsZfmBUnHQ2TbE8H08e8q/eZtueBGCz5uAM3wLbVDKdadAs618Xs4dB8sr6sq8 ZD2AMOtXCgtPcveflEyN6i7zv/NXVQKSUdQ6oNLVrg2JildCqMaCnxBJ1g4sV2fJPr1d bYrn5Nu4V9YJZaQT8hac99Bb7Wqt/b37XtYK7qDjM8+k2VnjSwWR7LkVfLXboLwSoQNI Up4tpF9332W+I0T/aVVQXGkMMuSYNHvWkighk0x4Q7+polApdnux6xS+AcY5YEjA72On jsngcN4R+p+054OToeNMWgR9lXiRaF8KcWoU4/QGZ1o7xA00birG1brglHvlFgUnIJDK 3IcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.186.99 with SMTP id fj3mr28684944wic.10.1429587047486; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.233.233 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:30:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ted Hardie To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2677c241a49051433ac45 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:30:50 -0000 --001a11c2677c241a49051433ac45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Hey, Ted. > > > Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do *not* > talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut > those discussions down if they happen. If an IPR claim is filed on an internet-draft, I think a working group participant saying something like "I still plan to implement this, as I see $FOO and $BAR as demonstrating prior art." would be well within our process. Preventing them from saying that because some other participant doesn't want to hear about $FOO or $BAR seems like it grants a patent assertion way too much power. Note that this does not in any way mean that other participants must come to the same conclusion as the participant who mentions $FOO and $BAR. As you note, they must come to their own conclusions. But I have certainly heard multiple discussions of participants' evaluations of how specific claims would or would not effect their choices, and I believe that these are appropriate. > I believe that we consider > those discussions out of scope for working groups, and that we expect > and advise each participant to make her own decision in that regard. > > =E2=80=8BI think we consider the working group making an assertion about th= e patent rights inappropriate, but that it may come to consensus about likely implementation and deployment based on its participants evaluation of all the criteria for that (including=E2=80=8B the participants' knowledge of re= levant prior technologies). And I think that's very different from saying "we don't discuss prior art". > Barry > =E2=80=8Bregards, Ted=E2=80=8B --001a11c2677c241a49051433ac45 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM= , Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
Hey, Ted.


Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do= *not*
talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut
those discussions down if they happen.

If an= IPR claim is filed on an internet-draft, I think a working group participa= nt saying something like "I still plan to implement this, as I see=C2= =A0 $FOO and $BAR as demonstrating prior art." would be well within ou= r process.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Preventing them from saying that because some other = participant doesn't want to hear about $FOO or $BAR seems like it grant= s a patent assertion way too much power.=C2=A0

Note that this does = not in any way mean that other participants must come to the same conclusio= n as the participant who mentions $FOO and $BAR.=C2=A0 As you note, they mu= st come to their own conclusions.=C2=A0 But I have certainly heard multiple= discussions of participants' evaluations of how specific claims would = or would not effect their choices, and I believe that these are appropriate= .=C2=A0
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 I= believe that we consider
those discussions out of scope for working groups, and that we expect
and advise each participant to make her own decision in that regard.


=E2=80=8BI think we consider the working group making= an assertion about the patent rights inappropriate, but that it may come t= o consensus about likely implementation and deployment based on its partici= pants evaluation of all the criteria for that (including=E2=80=8B the parti= cipants' knowledge of relevant prior technologies).=C2=A0 And I think t= hat's very different from saying "we don't discuss prior art&q= uot;.

=C2=A0
Barry
=C2=A0
=E2=80= =8Bregards,

Ted=E2=80=8B

--001a11c2677c241a49051433ac45-- From nobody Mon Apr 20 23:50:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969541B366A for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:50:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XTmXsl1eyYc for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396511B366C for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8197C7C0CA9 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:49:53 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiKgivPZuDlA for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:49:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.192] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54C267C03DE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:49:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5535F310.409@alvestrand.no> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:49:52 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: video-codec@ietf.org References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:50:00 -0000 Den 21. april 2015 05:30, skrev Ted Hardie: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Barry Leiba > wrote: > > ​I think we consider the working group making an assertion about the > patent rights inappropriate, but that it may come to consensus about > likely implementation and deployment based on its participants > evaluation of all the criteria for that (including​ the participants' > knowledge of relevant prior technologies). And I think that's very > different from saying "we don't discuss prior art". Back in the days of Draft Standard, one criterion (RFC 2026 section 4.1.2) was this: If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process. After extensive discussion, I think that it was concluded that "I have taken no license, I don't believe I have to, and I haven't been challenged on it so far" constituded an exercise of the licensing process for purposes of counting implementations. From nobody Tue Apr 21 07:29:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62671AC3CE; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95vrP3ODaqSq; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A6E1AC39D; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so16671600igb.0; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fQRzypM7lLdXukvGc/zmMPZY1qngwgBihqOhs7v3Gqo=; b=wScutuvOk8gMVPZ22VQ0Ja15IMRkmOjc5FlWQPW62nT/gX4o0Fw+Sc9odGzN5A7WgB ipMXqTY05uO/BpuvqFRIct3oUtQ9MC+jXPOFTQqsMXCoF94Gz9fQy96b3DPt8D8sFMtP zwgjLv7/2le1kwp25MM1pJFmYfEyD/EJNYxzkfOwa2OiDt/osHP+afb1lK76ejPMAH2G gxjf1AWF3qlsI9UuYq6lKIDB1b3o6D11pzsut3tkn2+Xa0twm9XndcRHLv9hsjcwsEAZ zT6I0Yv/g1BPmoJSQOt5z/bRjCtsowv8cZaPuP7AQS/KelABnLUHQnyg+2vWGJfWNUrX 7mnw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.30.130 with SMTP id s2mr4514995igh.11.1429626563110; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:29:23 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8msuXrn7w1EKINEWzDdyPL1FPt8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Ted Hardie Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:29:25 -0000 >> Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do *not* >> talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut >> those discussions down if they happen. > > If an IPR claim is filed on an internet-draft, I think a working group > participant saying something like "I still plan to implement this, as I see > $FOO and $BAR as demonstrating prior art." would be well within our process. > Preventing them from saying that because some other participant doesn't want > to hear about $FOO or $BAR seems like it grants a patent assertion way too > much power. > > Note that this does not in any way mean that other participants must come to > the same conclusion as the participant who mentions $FOO and $BAR. As you > note, they must come to their own conclusions. But I have certainly heard > multiple discussions of participants' evaluations of how specific claims > would or would not effect their choices, and I believe that these are > appropriate. I agree with what you say -- I had interpreted your comment to refer to more involved and extensive discussion. And I think that Alissa's new text supports what you say above. Barry From nobody Tue Apr 21 07:52:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A301ACDAA; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQd14wuE7gLi; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68EE41ACDDC; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3LEl4pJ049507 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:47:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Alissa Cooper" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:47:04 -0500 Message-ID: <748BDDB4-7370-4E86-B8E5-94CC7392B35A@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:52:55 -0700 Cc: Barry Leiba , video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:47:20 -0000 On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Barry, all, > > I’ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come > up with the edits below as a result. Would these address your > concerns? > > OLD > The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable > reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms > or > tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with > royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why > it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help > adoption > of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or > patent > research information. > > NEW > In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where > there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF > basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider > information concerning old prior art or the results of research > indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. > > Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external > parties all the time: > The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input received > from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed > algorithms. > > 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. > > Alissa I like Alissa's proposed change. Ben. From nobody Tue Apr 21 08:10:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D031ACE2C; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrpPfLPY-MxL; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9DDA1ACE26; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3LF9hhC051458 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:09:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local Message-ID: <55366836.5000208@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:09:42 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Campbell , Alissa Cooper References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> <748BDDB4-7370-4E86-B8E5-94CC7392B35A@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <748BDDB4-7370-4E86-B8E5-94CC7392B35A@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Barry Leiba , video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:10:00 -0000 On 4/21/15 09:47, Ben Campbell wrote: > On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Hi Barry, all, >> >> I’ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come up >> with the edits below as a result. Would these address your concerns? >> >> OLD >> The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable >> reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or >> tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with >> royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why >> it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption >> of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent >> research information. >> >> NEW >> In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where >> there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF >> basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider >> information concerning old prior art or the results of research >> indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. >> >> Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external >> parties all the time: >> The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input received >> from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed >> algorithms. >> >> 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. >> >> Alissa > > I like Alissa's proposed change. I do also. /a From nobody Tue Apr 21 13:20:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96551A888A; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoFyAUdWntXs; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8009E1A8963; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:20:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150421202002.25495.34452.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:20:02 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Martin Stiemerling's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:20:14 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am supportive to the chartering effort, but I believe that the cross-WG review part is expressed too weak in this text part: "In completing its work, the working group will liaise with other relevant IETF working groups and SDOs, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and other IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; W3C working groups including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T (Study group 16); ISO/IEC (JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC." My text proposal: In completing its work, the working group will seek cross-WG review with other relevant IETF working groups, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and other IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; and liaise with other SDOs, such as W3C working groups including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T (Study group 16); ISO/IEC (JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please expand RF in this paragraph: "The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent research information. " From nobody Tue Apr 21 21:59:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E2A1A8A91 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jUBoVCASmmIS for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:59:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA52E1A8A8B for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24C42081A for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:59:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:59:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=EscUf7T24jH0e92end3jshkVAdY=; b=xgwpkt PQYHA2b+CitVN/Fu12uScTfdjvW1uciIrGiLtCvoH073c+Zff9AfP7//KJR3Yfnj kdXLs5Tfo2UDCMBGMyEYQrVPw0jC7s34jrMLTlgbyHVUNPSROXVDk597NSY567nZ BL6GLZkHsQFcoPbV6OnqTJxDgmoFIVfBREA/s= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=EscUf7T24jH0e92 end3jshkVAdY=; b=GgYoxpl9p2Rgbmf9yKljpew+COA4IkAZycgRb9+cvF0rftH 7TtE8xIn8aZ2BMC27oK0qJ6sBGshVP2ZvT+cGbKcFZCmuSev5OrnllPXuIXvdwwC JlDLPI9vpN3PUizAES7NWucy/z0gcfDpdg39HjSCYJ08fTfEOH6mIE1HWDzE= X-Sasl-enc: gOx8+zncTQI5s2QT2zyPtpalAe7W2UgP/QjEKiFFZoIu 1429678760 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.173]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BD0FFC00017; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <20150421202002.25495.34452.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:59:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8C76D78D-A359-4B97-9A5B-2BD4B33E7C99@cooperw.in> References: <20150421202002.25495.34452.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Martin Stiemerling X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Martin Stiemerling's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 04:59:24 -0000 Hi Martin, On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Martin Stiemerling = wrote: > Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > I am supportive to the chartering effort, but I believe that the = cross-WG > review part is expressed too weak in this text part: >=20 > "In completing its work, the working group will liaise with other > relevant IETF > working groups and SDOs, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and > other > IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; W3C working > groups > including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T (Study group 16); > ISO/IEC > (JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC." >=20 > My text proposal: >=20 > In completing its work, the working group will seek cross-WG review = with > other relevant IETF > working groups, including PAYLOAD, RMCAT, RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and other > IETF WGs that make use of or handle negotiation of codecs; and liaise > with other SDOs, such as=20 > W3C working groups including HTML, Device APIs and WebRTC; and ITU-T > (Study group 16); ISO/IEC > (JTC1/SC29 WG11); 3GPP (SA4); and JCT-VC. I see no problem with this since liaising with a working group is more = or less equivalent to getting cross-WG review. I have made this change. Alissa >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Please expand RF in this paragraph: > "The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable > reasons to > believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or tools = where > there > is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with royalty liability > potential. > The codec specification will document why it believes that each part = is > likely > to be RF, which will help adoption of the codec. This can include > references to > old prior art and/or patent research information. > " >=20 >=20 From nobody Tue Apr 21 22:00:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B48C1A8AB4 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:00:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTVdFgm0jPll for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D1E11A8AAE for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9F720A65 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:00:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=pytiw Of7ZncJG0Od0m2frGHesLM=; b=ThNrSEYVggsmhezgPcZi0df0Aoa50/uPYjwSv f/Tr/HVBaWopKRJGkJxeTcGNTzUpNCUdsCcYlzk93x9wX1CbDOFY2y38cuystK5x nAyseAMssbw0gPlMz6PN97yic0x72pR3KprBfghT2zx69ZlhBbh6zpoYl34scS+Q N4ngNA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=pytiwOf7ZncJG0Od0m2frGHesLM=; b=n935B QvF1ZvgcY2YmiTJG8TDZS3qwORCRtpPpg7FJIb6q6ZpUADgLS8BExFHjE0FQuP9d Y8F0X0vDKmJf8wnRBIn4yfy7ZwNN30ARoGxnb2rnrupt4JHtvDAam4VmjgM5Ple8 l/IQ7WcdHuyvE5u12zkBmoyYYHMB8cNwoVPcNU= X-Sasl-enc: KjwL+diJhCwprcy6FvZTQ0L8gM8jwD3bNsrsZSK7vm9Z 1429678824 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.173]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9FD21C00016; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:00:23 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6320B05C-11EA-4FDE-8132-2A31FF1814BD" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <55366836.5000208@nostrum.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:00:22 -0700 Message-Id: <47D5B46A-4A62-43CC-9909-2CF27282A06E@cooperw.in> References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> <748BDDB4-7370-4E86-B8E5-94CC7392B35A@nostrum.com> <55366836.5000208@nostrum.com> To: Adam Roach X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , Barry Leiba , video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:00:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6320B05C-11EA-4FDE-8132-2A31FF1814BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I made these changes, which now appear in charter-ietf-netvc-00-01. Alissa On Apr 21, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > On 4/21/15 09:47, Ben Campbell wrote: >> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi Barry, all, >>>=20 >>> I=92ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and have come = up with the edits below as a result. Would these address your concerns? >>>=20 >>> OLD >>> The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable >>> reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms = or >>> tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with >>> royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document = why >>> it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help = adoption >>> of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or = patent >>> research information. >>>=20 >>> NEW >>> In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where = there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF = basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider = information concerning old prior art or the results of research = indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. >>>=20 >>> Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input from external = parties all the time: >>> The WG will accept and consider in its decision process input = received >>> from external parties concerning IPR risk associated with proposed >>> algorithms. >>>=20 >>> Everything else would remain the same. The above edits don=92t = 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. >>>=20 >>> Alissa >>=20 >> I like Alissa's proposed change. >=20 > I do also. >=20 > /a --Apple-Mail=_6320B05C-11EA-4FDE-8132-2A31FF1814BD Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
I = made these changes, which now appear = in charter-ietf-netvc-00-01.
Alissa

On = Apr 21, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> = wrote:

On 4/21/15 09:47, Ben Campbell = wrote:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:35, Alissa = Cooper wrote:

Hi Barry, = all,

I=92ve had a conversation with Jorge and Scott Bradner and = have come up with the edits below as a result. Would these address your = concerns?

OLD
The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where = there are verifiable
reasons to believe they are available on an RF = basis over algorithms or
tools where there is RF uncertainty or known = active IPR claims with
royalty liability potential. The codec = specification will document why
it believes that each part is likely = to be RF, which will help adoption
of the codec. This can include = references to old prior art and/or patent
research = information.

NEW
In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer = algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they = are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the = WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of = research indicating royalty-free availability of particular = techniques.

Delete this sentence since WGs generally accept input = from external parties all the time:
The WG will accept and consider = in its decision process input received
from external parties = concerning IPR risk associated with = proposed
algorithms.

Everything else would remain the same. = The above edits don=92t 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.

Alissa

I like Alissa's proposed = change.

I do = also.

/a

= --Apple-Mail=_6320B05C-11EA-4FDE-8132-2A31FF1814BD-- From nobody Wed Apr 22 00:49:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8047E1B332F; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:49:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNAn3gCsdW1l; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419CE1B332C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:49:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422074941.27796.58022.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:49:41 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:49:42 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for sorting out my blocking concern. I still have my minor comment: << 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. >> I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in how many documents of what sort. Thanks! Related to that: I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document. From nobody Wed Apr 22 08:31:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1081AC431; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpGNFo80iRrp; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F811AC40C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A823CC0F83; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:31:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GeYQkf_WWK98; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.48] (50-78-100-113-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.78.100.113]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60F57C0F2A; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5537BEDE.4060908@xiph.org> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:31:42 -0700 From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alissa Cooper , Adam Roach References: <20150420222742.2241.70962.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <60075945-9239-4BF9-A81D-4CCBBD8CE4DC@cooperw.in> <748BDDB4-7370-4E86-B8E5-94CC7392B35A@nostrum.com> <55366836.5000208@nostrum.com> <47D5B46A-4A62-43CC-9909-2CF27282A06E@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <47D5B46A-4A62-43CC-9909-2CF27282A06E@cooperw.in> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Ben Campbell , Barry Leiba , video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:31:49 -0000 Alissa Cooper wrote: > I made these changes, which now appear in charter-ietf-netvc-00-01. Thanks for taking care of this. From nobody Wed Apr 22 08:50:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0ABD1ACE24; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k3eeyneBVmex; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882561ACD62; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:49:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422154952.16875.61740.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:49:52 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:50:11 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my concerns. A nit: there is one "RF" left in this paragraph "In keeping with BCP 79, the WG [...] on an RF basis." From nobody Wed Apr 22 16:40:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D911B2B8E; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24cSou0Yemir; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:40:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10D01B2B8A; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:39:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150422233958.9312.48393.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:39:58 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:40:07 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two comments you should feel entirely free to treat as nits: - The term "competitive" is used a couple of times. I get the gist but that might add more scope for people unhappy with the WG consensus to re-argue about performance measurements. (But maybe they will anyway.) - The BCP79 para says "verifiable" which sounds nice but might also leave open too much scope for argument if someone insists that the WG consensus is not based on verifiable reasons. Mostly, the BCP79 conclusions reached by participants are not verifiable, even if the facts presented to the WG that are taken into account are verifiable. I think it'd maybe be better to say something like "prefer algorithms or tools where there is rough consensus amongst participants that those will in fact be available without significant encumbrance on a royalty-free basis." From nobody Wed Apr 22 23:46:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F2D1ACDE1; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fkELxTcUxdZX; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D461A907C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:46:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150423064618.4204.34815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:46:18 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:46:33 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As a sitting TSV AD, I applaud "It should include, but may not be limited to, the ability to support fast and flexible congestion control and rate adaptation, ..." Thanks to the group for going there. This seems uber important. I'm balloting Yes with heartburn, based on this text: "In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques." What I had assumed based on the BOF is that NETVC intends to use non-traditional techniques to (I'm quoting from the "DAALA coding tools and progress" slides at the BOF) "Replace major codec building blocks with fundamentally different technology "Be sufficiently different from existing approaches to avoid large swaths of patents" as DAALA has done - at least, I assumed that was the point of showing these slides at the BOF. Am I misunderstanding, or is NETVC back to using traditional approaches, where looking at old prior art matters more? I agree with Martin's initial Discuss, and I mention that to thank you for the change into "seek cross-area review". I do see that as stronger than "liase with". From nobody Thu Apr 23 04:02:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF261B2D53; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:02:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id prmoy7yxd6Vj; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E4A1ACE17; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:02:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150423110203.14263.62713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:02:03 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:02:11 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement first. Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. Then I realized this text, further down: The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR unencumbered codec. You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this time." From nobody Thu Apr 23 06:25:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2132D1B2FF2; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Ii97nkx0uie; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0B01A9127; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iget9 with SMTP id t9so10068447ige.1; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0qAKrR9AJlviiObeCeuZdxgm3cjVT8MphAYGMOGqVQY=; b=GvYtlqmOXRVmrunUnNd01LRKpO8kOmcemk3j/BfG5EeyAY1QRBA8hNgpd9YM3Vn9aq hyEwi5xbDKbQ7smNyQjEafV3ggQTiPAs9dYXelDlkR2kAlxv5fIgs+H3M+ycV+ptrWjx Tj/RJpNsgw8v5ugDIZc0Xm7xrmAxj+/ixe68IB+npbTjjeB2BcqWm6cGya00Sat/Cj1/ 0LDqF1NKGzGQTw+cq3IXhZuAexpPe5E8VeOu2AwZAUlmVTDLQGUEo7SneDNIqD32DyFe yavs31L2DAEdRy521hBRU0XIjEMJk8o465rN7Xs+Ha/JkQ7Y5+CbTiynW1w6/++hTGGY jRiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.23.17 with SMTP id q17mr3651338icb.4.1429795542809; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150423064618.4204.34815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150423064618.4204.34815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:25:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JtuS9e6AXJKgaIT_QU2t0a-iGZU Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Spencer Dawkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:25:44 -0000 > Am I misunderstanding, or is NETVC back to using traditional approaches, > where looking at old prior art matters more? The sense I get from talking with folks is that they're still working in the direction Daala has been, but intellectual property issues can always crop up anywhere, and they have to have a plan for how to deal with them when they do, and when there's something they can't work around by taking a different approach. Barry From nobody Thu Apr 23 06:35:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5658D1B3097 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8cLbaO6pxlm for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECD451B308E for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583F8204AB for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:34:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=VWl+SwN3Kg9kFAJPucuysT4lYPc=; b=bjTrlj TtxXHi5JmdcKY3ZmSmOjIXUfe2oXDp9hJHUM8JahLNCwU402DhbnhxU9O0IyVuMz NaQKOqsQXVobmRXQRcGBNavV25V1cXCNx8LKygS2yXqgCvpwLtgSwpAjgNYWq/Uz kRMcikuTgsQkOMNtVi6bMdBSPZpIOyJGZlI2k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=VWl+SwN3Kg9kFAJ PucuysT4lYPc=; b=s134TDzj/j6UM8/t8ceuR0qfUMVnYVYaBoWQKnzbaSVeZ8E PNG3zax/wfFQWanGLboz4WrmB5xm5mu+gCWJ1r0GbXOd+CCIbpH/NrRuGtojkdUE JFsjXgBs6jUHUU38/vYJKSFsn1tQrYyVSUmNtCjmpJmgmZbq5PWuf8nTiGqM= X-Sasl-enc: D3SCtKKUlnkVWeaBLkftVuRv6DChK2eDRvP9lYg1LWlF 1429796087 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.166]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 42F4EC00019; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <20150423110203.14263.62713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:34:45 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3FB337D7-CF6D-4F4F-9E88-5594C4E5DD2D@cooperw.in> References: <20150423110203.14263.62713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Benoit Claise X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:35:12 -0000 Hi Benoit, On Apr 23, 2015, at 4:02 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: Block >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement first. > Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: >=20 > In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools = where > there are > verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In > developing > the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning > old prior > art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability > of > particular techniques. >=20 > Then I realized this text, further down: >=20 > The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In > general, IETF > working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for > technologies > with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This > preference > cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR > unencumbered codec. >=20 > You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. These two paragraphs serve slightly different purposes. The first one = cites BCP 79 as a means to explain how the WG may consider the IPR = landscape in developing the codec. The second one then further = articulates what BCP 79 says and its limitation in terms of the outcome = of the WG. These are not quite the same thing. Given that the first paragraph resulted from consultation with Jorge and = Scott as mentioned in the thread regarding Barry=92s block, that the = citation to BCP 79 there was an important addition, and that the second = paragraph is taken directly from the CODEC charter, I=92m hesitant to = make more edits to any of this language. Also, is this comment really BLOCK-worthy for external review? Thanks, Alissa >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, > basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this = time." >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > video-codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec From nobody Thu Apr 23 06:38:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB2E1B3071; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LDgAgjPcTXRk; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 576A71B3085; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so23056550igb.0; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EGys1DcOyMLpPIMNNpxtHBiP89RIxWdgE6+leLEHqwc=; b=Xz/DZRdjAs0hWsjoYj+ZAj0yxhVM5uY6GZukSHGBHueq2xjV86gu/RthDjiqQxAJyi mL1BoMFLw0sHArviar+2Vhq1deBorCwyfYE0+SjvATh5tw3N/JYIpeaEiicolaBdgZFP CwTa9C1wffZkNgvU58oQeWtz6X0piIWD9RKuTxw1V/jrXpFc3narTihWmTaQOWGL3H99 sLH+x3GGruoBg/Huui+JYBO81Ws+l22i6weEGCbPp38jXhcLWkMO4IieC82/ByQSXwqh BOHwucc9OwHK6aCjdhONXKLF96edlR+QbFfJn3dYkcUvtE7fhA48cr4UC/x3Wk18tYf4 xbyg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.35.195 with SMTP id k3mr12042983igj.11.1429796320900; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:38:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3FB337D7-CF6D-4F4F-9E88-5594C4E5DD2D@cooperw.in> References: <20150423110203.14263.62713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3FB337D7-CF6D-4F4F-9E88-5594C4E5DD2D@cooperw.in> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:38:40 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y29TvhTnmT45-9QVp55AKs8y_LE Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Alissa Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: Benoit Claise , video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:38:51 -0000 > These two paragraphs serve slightly different purposes. The first one > cites BCP 79 as a means to explain how the WG may consider the IPR > landscape in developing the codec. The second one then further > articulates what BCP 79 says and its limitation in terms of the > outcome of the WG. These are not quite the same thing. > > Given that the first paragraph resulted from consultation with Jorge > and Scott as mentioned in the thread regarding Barry's block, that the > citation to BCP 79 there was an important addition, and that the > second paragraph is taken directly from the CODEC charter, I'm > hesitant to make more edits to any of this language. For what it's worth, I agree. Barry From nobody Thu Apr 23 07:32:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EDA1A9135; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:32:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rbz1Tc76e8ZA; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0621A9134; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150423143155.15237.57568.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:31:55 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org Subject: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:32:17 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement first. Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. Then I realized this text, further down: The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This preference cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR unencumbered codec. You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. - Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this time." From nobody Thu Apr 23 08:09:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDC21A6F04 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybxamSBZzJT7 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 700531A9231 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDDA20B06 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:08:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=mFs0AYH8QZXItmcRdeyiiTbIOc0=; b=RkykKl n/Qke5D12YuMZHeCf78hJKncZolAGZWL1QCkgZtXt+lH+giXf4pPBr7w1VCtQFWm cgM6JbBHQFracoLxTq/N0oqEO3p1r6cnqLryuhLNCpgETRqg+o5GKhPdiaRmTLgq HVygjEpIrhvwpxrnXTv7PoGdWBumNVUeBJjg0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=mFs0AYH8QZXItmc RdeyiiTbIOc0=; b=qeRGBlIA7gjwMmXOFeqOZBN1VxqWMnTam/AZ3nJtpDRhS4G tJi/PtSJDpKawHZEh3RW8AYxKmkbAA6lcGZ2ohRa1v5XG5NPN9ThpUIkcOgWs715 0Nr4m6IfO4te90Mc2n1aWjO6stUIFrbf7zWel08K6G20BfvNndQsQklNXL6Y= X-Sasl-enc: EaAG8Lp6GTFhlEoIKdtniY48XnwOaSZy3F29FnfS0WE2 1429801732 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.166]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7315C0001B; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <20150423143155.15237.57568.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:08:50 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4995BCA7-B968-4571-B8CA-E2577979F2DB@cooperw.in> References: <20150423143155.15237.57568.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Benoit Claise X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:09:02 -0000 I did a little re-arranging so that all the text that references BCP 79 = is now in one paragraph, in charter-ietf-netvc-00-02. None of the = meaning changed though: "The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In = general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR = claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of = royalty-free licensing." In keeping with this BCP, the WG will prefer = algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they = are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the = WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of = research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. = Note that the preference stated in BCP 79 cannot guarantee that the = working group will produce an IPR unencumbered codec.=94 Alissa On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: No Objection >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > - I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement = first. > Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: >=20 > In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools = where > there are > verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In > developing > the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning > old prior > art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability > of > particular techniques. >=20 > Then I realized this text, further down: >=20 > The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In > general, IETF > working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for > technologies > with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This > preference > cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR > unencumbered codec. >=20 > You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. >=20 > - Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, > basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this = time." >=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 23 08:22:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EABD1A9144; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCx_nImeX7E3; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDC41A8A73; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:22:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2785; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429802570; x=1431012170; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V5h3xUqdLjnO8Y0426vvZZiKGI3IzaoizueS4dASsm0=; b=jNk119tU9FCSGEtJRZxPFxmPUCe0r8q9hESE7V2en2hXATEWMprhihot /OS3MzlkweQ8ugV0az/fcYuVhpxfx64eGhZk+fQUAOD3tyjYrxJEQRv+l nLeQVON1nomZmaWnIA1GW5kPmdRE4m94/d5Z2zsWWnhdmNkP8Fqxxgh1b s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D7AwBrDTlV/xbLJq1bg15cvgyIGAmBUYYEAoFuFAEBAQEBAQGBCoQhAQEEMgEFQAEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBQIBAYgnDcxbAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLN4QhEQFRB4QtAQSGPIhuhiGGNIEiPIMJgk+OFSNggSccgVM8MYELgTkBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,631,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="441010598" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2015 15:22:48 +0000 Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3NFMmsu022590; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:22:48 GMT Message-ID: <55390E6F.5090503@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:23:27 +0200 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alissa Cooper References: <20150423143155.15237.57568.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4995BCA7-B968-4571-B8CA-E2577979F2DB@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <4995BCA7-B968-4571-B8CA-E2577979F2DB@cooperw.in> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:22:52 -0000 Thank you Alissa. Regards, Benoit > I did a little re-arranging so that all the text that references BCP 79 is now in one paragraph, in charter-ietf-netvc-00-02. None of the meaning changed though: > > "The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." In keeping with this BCP, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. Note that the preference stated in BCP 79 cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR unencumbered codec.” > > Alissa > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - I'm supportive of this effort, but it requires one improvement first. >> Like most IESG members, I spent some time on: >> >> In keeping with BCP 79, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where >> there are >> verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In >> developing >> the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning >> old prior >> art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability >> of >> particular techniques. >> >> Then I realized this text, further down: >> >> The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In >> general, IETF >> working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for >> technologies >> with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." This >> preference >> cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR >> unencumbered codec. >> >> You should avoid these almost similar paragraphs and combine the text. >> >> - Suggestion: Do you want to have a reference to OPUS in the charter, >> basically telling: "we want the same success, but for video this time." >> >> > . > From nobody Thu Apr 23 13:06:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B1C1B3282; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUFmdhDkj65x; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7302C1B322C; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Orochi.local (rrcs-24-173-40-58.sw.biz.rr.com [24.173.40.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3NK5Woa016959 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:05:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host rrcs-24-173-40-58.sw.biz.rr.com [24.173.40.58] claimed to be Orochi.local Message-ID: <5539508B.1090708@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:05:31 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba , Spencer Dawkins References: <20150423064618.4204.34815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: video-codec@ietf.org, The IESG Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-netvc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:06:12 -0000 On 4/23/15 08:25, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Am I misunderstanding, or is NETVC back to using traditional approaches, >> where looking at old prior art matters more? > The sense I get from talking with folks is that they're still working > in the direction Daala has been, but intellectual property issues can > always crop up anywhere, and they have to have a plan for how to deal > with them when they do, and when there's something they can't work > around by taking a different approach. > I think that's right. I'll put special emphasis on the use of the word "may" in the sentence. /a From nobody Fri Apr 24 08:27:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13C21A9302; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:27:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S_Dc52OfjsBV; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895121AC3BC; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150424152730.16096.44504.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:27:30 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: netvc WG Subject: [video-codec] WG Review: Internet Video Codec (netvc) X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:27:32 -0000 A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2015-05-04. Internet Video Codec (netvc) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Assigned Area Director: Alissa Cooper Mailing list Address: video-codec@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/ Charter: Objectives This WG is chartered to produce a high-quality video codec that meets the following conditions: 1. Is competitive with current video codecs in widespread use. 2. Is optimized for use in interactive web applications. 3. Is viewed as having IPR licensing terms that allow it to be widely implemented and deployed. To elaborate, this video codec will need to be commercially interesting to implement by being competitive with the video codecs in widespread use at the time it is finalized. This video codec will need to be optimized for the real-world conditions of the public, best-effort Internet. It should include, but may not be limited to, the ability to support fast and flexible congestion control and rate adaptation, the ability to quickly join broadcast streams and the ability to be optimized for captures of content typically shared in interactive communications. The objective is to produce a video codec that can be implemented, distributed, and deployed by open source and closed source software as well as implemented in specialized hardware. The working group shall heed the preference stated in BCP 79: "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." In keeping with this BCP, the WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis. In developing the codec specification, the WG may consider information concerning old prior art or the results of research indicating royalty-free availability of particular techniques. Note that the preference stated in BCP 79 cannot guarantee that the working group will produce an IPR unencumbered codec. Process The core technical considerations for such a codec include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. High compression efficiency that is competitive with existing popular video codecs. 2. Reasonable computational complexity that permits real-time operation on existing, popular hardware, including mobile devices, and efficient implementation in new hardware designs. 3. Use in interactive real-time applications, such as point-to-point video calls, multi-party video conferencing, telepresence, teleoperation, and in-game video chat. 4. Resilient in the real-world transport conditions of the Internet, such as the flexibility to rapidly respond to changing bandwidth availability and loss rates, etc. 5. Integratable with common Internet applications and Web APIs (e.g., the HTML5