Liaison statement
LS on call for comments on an IETF WG on Internet Video Codec (netvc) [to IETF IESG]

State Posted
Posted Date 2015-05-05
From Group ITU-T-SG-16
From Contact Rosa De Vivero
To Group IETF
To Contacts The IETF Chair
CcThe IESG
Michael Knappe
Roni Even
Response Contact yushi.naito@ties.itu.int
garysull@microsoft.com
jill.boyce@intel.com
twiegand@ieee.org
Purpose For action
Deadline 2015-05-30 Action Needed
Attachments LS on call for comments on an IETF WG on Internet Video Codec (netvc) [to IETF IESG]
Liaisons referring to this one Response to LS on call for comments on an IETF WG on Internet Video Codec (netvc)
Body
ITU-T SG16 experts became aware of the call for comments issued by the IETF
IESG on 26 April 2015.

We seek clarification of the goals of this new working group effort. It does
not seem clear that any specific need for such new work has been identified.
The goal of being "competitive" with standards in widespread use seems to be
describing a basically undesirable attribute of a standards development
activity, which should presumably be to achieve interoperability and to focus
industry efforts rather than to compete with other well-developed
technologies. Notably, the HEVC international standard (Rec. ITU-T H.265 and
ISO/IEC 23008-2) has recently emerged as a major advance in technical
capability relative to prior standards, and it is not clear that this new
effort would produce superior capability to that of HEVC. There is a stated
goal of being "optimized foruse in interactive web applications", but we are
aware of no technical deficiencies that would make a new design clearly
superior for such applications. The remaining listed goal of having licensing
terms that would enable broad use is, of course, desirable, but does not seem
different than for any standardization effort.

Various standardization bodies have been active in the area of video coding
technology (ITU-T Q6/16 VCEG, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 MPEG, SMPTE, IEEE,
VESA, etc.). Several projects in this area have recently been completed or
remain under active development. From the provided description, we do not see
a clear need for launching a new "competitive" working group project. We would
welcome information as to what such needs may exist that have not yet been
clearly identified.