Subject: [codec] Summary of CODEC BOF

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:11:01 +0200

Thank you all very much for your attendance at the Codec BoF yesterday  
(especially those on the US West Coast who were up at 04:00 to join  
remotely). The room was packed with interested and passionate parties.  
The discussion was sensible and relevant. Many helpful contributions  
of data and perspective were provided. Much progress was made.

For our part, we -- Cullen, AD, and Gregory, IAB BoF Shepherd --  
apologize for  ending the BoF abruptly and without healthy closure  
containing a sufficient summary. This email serves to provide that  
summary and closure.

According to the general IETF process, the next steps for this efforts  
are:
- IESG will solicit feedback from stakeholders and advisors. This  
includes:
   - Codec mail list
   - the broader community (though said community really should  
participate on the Codec mail list)
   - the IAB
   - other SDOs
   - IETF liaisons to other SDOs

- the IESG will then discuss and determine next steps. Options for  
those next steps hypothetically include:
   - take no additional actions (essentially, the IESG stops working  
on this)
   - form a Working Group
   - hold another BoF (perhaps in IETF76, Hiroshima)
   - suggest focus or specific action items to those on the Codec mail  
list.

The IESG and IAB discussed the CODEC BOF this morning and came out  
with several observations about the BOF (in accordance with RFC2418,  
Sect 2.1):

Accomplishments:
  - overall issue is clear and relevant
  - risks and urgency were flushed out
  - strong interest and participation
  - sufficient expertise
  - sufficient, if not strong, number of commitments to contribute to  
key work areas
  - large base of interested consumers for the technology
  - understanding that a goal would involved producing a royalty free  
codec
  - understanding it would not be possible to guarantee that resulting  
codecs would be royalty free
  - clearly an open IETF effort
  - excellent understanding of existing work relevant, and possibly  
overlapping

Still needs work:
  - better clarification/defined goals in charter, with stronger  
consensus
  - define requirements in far better depth, (I-Ds would be nice)
  - further investigation on the role IETF has to play in this  
technology area, especially in light of other SDOs

The IESG's decisions and next steps:
  - with IAB, respond to other SDO liaisons already sent us
  - continue monitoring progress

The IESG and IAB considers the coordination with other interested  
SDO's very important, especially on this topic, and will continue open  
coordination with other SDOs, and respond to the Liaisons sent us to  
date.

Thanks for your continued participation, great input, healthy  
discussion, and (hopefully) useful text contributions.

Cullen <RAI AD>
Gregory <IAB>