Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85

Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Sun, 21 October 2012 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1192221F8433 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXfZYdS+RiI4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C058A21F8445 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f7d6d0000042ea-6e-50840a3e3245
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FC.F6.17130.E3A04805; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:44:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:44:13 +0200
Message-ID: <50840A3D.7060500@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:44:13 +0200
From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5082DE08.5040007@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <5082DE08.5040007@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra49V0uAwduJnBZr/7WzOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY9O9bYwFn8Uqzp27wtrAuFKoi5GTQ0LAROLV3cVMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAROMUpM6mhlhnCWM0rcWreKEaSKV0Bb4ur2j0AdHBwsAqoSj3uVQcJsAjYSa7un gA0SFQiTWL5zMxNEuaDEyZlPWEBsEQFhia2vesHiwgJ+EvtPLmMGsYUENCW2vrnADmJzCmhJ LPjXDlbDLGArcWHOdRYIW15i+9s5UPW6Eu9e32OdwCgwC8mKWUhaZiFpWcDIvIpRODcxMye9 3FwvtSgzubg4P0+vOHUTIzD8Dm75bbCDcdN9sUOM0hwsSuK8eqr7/YUE0hNLUrNTUwtSi+KL SnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwWh7+nHjZw79tReoDkUcXkjPXP2R32XqqIGYmR9eymfG6asZmoVo1s74L uYrnvGdZmLhmbmK7wtve3LK5n14/yg66FOHVXlXu0lfxIu/O27cexlFPn9RcsToi8GH9tu5D Wx5+cn8dt6RSLn2K+2VL+6UXVhWazz5fI+T4NLl8zVHNqtQ1jGlLlFiKMxINtZiLihMBSsSC Sw0CAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:44:19 -0000

On 10/20/2012 07:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Can we just save a bunch of time and have a show of hands at the
> beginning for:
>
> A) People who WILL NOT implement H.264 in their product and cannot be
> swayed by any presentation
>
> B) People who WILL NOT implement VP8 in their product and cannot be
> swayed by any presentation
>
> C) People who are still undecided enough that they want to hear the
> presentations

I think something like this makes sense. We could alternative do a show 
of hand for preference of either alternative, if it seems we're far away 
from any (rough) consensus then we could move on to discuss if we should 
abandon an MTI video codec, or select an alternative decision process.

And hopefully save a lot of time for SDP discussion.
>
> It is quite possible that once we get that out of the way, the rest of
> the presentations will be irrelevant and we can get back to discussing
> important things like who is going to write down the particulars for the
> "SDP profile" we're using as an API surface.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>
> [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> [fluffy@cisco.com]
>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:59 AM
>
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85
>
> We have two WebRTC session at the next IETF. We have not worked out the
> agenda for the first session yet but our current plan is to dedicate the
> second session to the MTI video codec question.
>
> The draft agenda for this season is:
>
> Admin issues (5 min)
>
> IPR at the IETF ( 10 min )
>
> - this is a reminder of IETF rules and guidelines around IPR
>
> Presentations ( 80 min )
>
> - a 20 minute presentation from each of the following drafts
>
> draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00
>
> draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-00
>
> draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
>
> draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00
>
> - If the authors of drafts recommending the same codec can consult with
> each other to avoid overlap, or even merge presentations, the recovered
> time would be given to the general discussion.
>
> General discussion (30 min )
>
> - general time for everyone to speak at the mic to express information
> important for the decision
>
> Call the question of which mandatory to implement video codec to select(
> 5 min )
>
> Next steps ( 20 min )
>
> Cullen, Magnus, and Ted <RTCWeb Chairs>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rtcweb mailing list
>
> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>