Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Matthew,

> But just because the charter mistakenly calls this out as something for the
> IETF to solve doesn't mean that the IETF is the right place to have the
> discussion. I will note that several other IETF protocols for A/V
> interoperability, such as SIP, have enjoyed wide success without wasting any
> valuable meeting time trying to standardize on a single audio and video
> codec...

You may have heard the chairs use the term "negotiation failure" in the context
of selecting mandatory to implement codecs.   This phrase was taken from one of
Henning's talking points on practical interoperability in SIP contexts
(see, for example,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg07453.html)  I
think Henning
knows a bit about SIP and the practical interoperability challenges it
has faced.  It
has also been pointed out by Hadriel (and several others) that the
cost of negotiation failure
in the case of video is much higher than it is for VoIP.  I understand
that you disagree,
but the charter is pretty clear that this is in scope, and, speaking
personally, I believe
the advantages of having an MTI are pretty clear.

> and there's certainly many other unresolved issues within the IETF
> that are blocking a final W3C API specification.

On this point, at least, I think there is broad agreement.  We are
working on the agenda now
to make sure we get the priorities for the work in order, and I hope
everyone takes the time
to contribute to that discussion.

regards,

Ted Hardie