I agree with Mohammed. What is needed is work product, not debate. Specifically, IPR documentation and reproducible tests, and the inputs to get to these.
To facilitate that, a quick search of the public ISO SC29 document register at http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/ <http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/> shows latest MPEG status in the February public meeting resolutions at https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n14764c.htm <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n14764c.htm> The register also seems to point to the latest relevant January vote by the governing national bodies of SC29, locked I assume by standard ISO procedure. Relevant selections copied below for convenience, but easy enough to use the above links directly. Rob 3.12 Part 31 – Video coding for browsers 3.12.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents No. Title TBP Available ISO/IEC 14496-31 – Video coding for browsers 15125 Draft Disposition of Comments on ISO/IEC DIS 14496-31 N 15/02/20 15126 Draft Text in Preparation for ISO/IEC 2nd DIS 14496-31 Video Coding for Browsers Y 15/02/20 3.13 During its 111th meeting, WG11 was informed, through the 14496-31 DIS ballot results, that some national bodies have requested actions regarding a Type-3 declaration made against the DIS text and, through contribution M35857 sourced by a Nokia expert, of a list of relevant patents. As the list apparently relates to both encoder and decoder, Nokia is kindly requested to provide information that specifically applies to ISO/IEC 14496-31, so that appropriate action can be taken for potential modification of a re-issued DIS. —— 15.6 Internet Video Coding 15.6.1 The Video subgroup recommends approval of the following documents <> No. Title TBP Available Explorations – Internet Video Coding 15159 Working Draft 5 of Internet Video Coding (IVC) Y 15/03/06 15160 Internet Video Coding Test Model (ITM) v 12.0 Y 15/03/13 15161 Description of IVC Exploration Experiments N 15/02/20 15162 Collection of information related to IVC technologies N 15/02/27 15.6.2 The Video subgroup notes that significant progress was made in the performance of ITM, and in terms of rate/PSNR performance, ITM11 is reported to be closer to AVC High profile, when compared to previous investigations that were documented in N14240 and N14989. Since new tools adopted to ITM12 are expected to give even more improvement, it is planned to perform another comparison of the visual quality of ITM and AVC HP at the 112th meeting. If it is shown that IVC reaches visual quality that is not distinguishable from AVC HP, it is anticipated that a progression into a formal standardization project could be started. —— Access Level Doc.No. (Replaces) Date Posted Title Source Status Doc Type File Issue No. Due Date ACT ID Project No. Name Size(KB) 14714 <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714c.htm> 115.2 <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714.zip> 115.2 2015-01-15 Summary of Voting on ISO/IEC DIS 14496-31: Information technology -- Coding of audio-visual objects -- Part 31: Video coding for browsers ISO/IEC ITTF Ballot result to be reviewed by WG 11 [Requested action: WG 11 is requested to prepare a disposition of comments report, a revised text and a recommendation on further processing of this work item.] Summary of Voting 29n14714c.htm <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714c.htm> 29n147141.doc <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n147141.doc> 29n14714att.zip <https://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/def/29view/29n14714att.zip> -- 72.2 104.2 1600 > On May 11, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Monty Montgomery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would suggest that people who have invested their time and resources into >> getting this working group started, focus on getting the technical work done >> instead of going back to debates about where to do the work. > > +1. I don't think there's any actual debate as to where to do the > work. That said, it was good to be reminded that however officially > opposed/distraught/confused ISO/MPEG or ITU may be over video codec > work happening in the IETF, we nonetheless likely have a substantial > number of individual allies in those groups. > > Monty > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
