IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 E659321F850C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:08:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1tpqV1INpH5r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD8521F852B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:08:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1043; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361902108; x=1363111708; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rU3uqSIaCphTRU1a8LxhUuJxfDUvz4pTFymfskKQBzU=; b=cRYAnYK3O0KAp2g4K8AAT36QDV5fuWLOokKXyO+pNDA0wdFhYvy7T4Pm hB+O/t67ti+fuDotkXN2KNqX02yoSIjntf0jBntzkdmYV7LRJEL9DRTyw sR3s6ZHnGBTFiVIH7hF72xvJY/TXr0zLFDQtKA+JQv5oaLNNO78e9u3T8 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAIv5LFGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFwWh/FnOCIQEEOlEBKhRCJwQbiAoBnmWRFZAFjmODF2EDpyiDCIIn
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,742,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181451302"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2013 18:08:28 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1QI8RhM020376 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:08:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.155]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:08:27 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti
Thread-Index: AQHOFExGxLgqgTDk7Uq8NoYnsLB7sQ==
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:08:26 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB113404C31@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [171.68.20.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <D4A0C349827D3B4590046CB676D947B2@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:08:29 -0000

I would like 25 minutes for presentation of information key to draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti that is not interrupted and 15 minutes for Q/A for the work. 

We have spent many hours of meeting time discussing the way we were going to make a decision around codecs and information needed, but we have not yet spent time discussing the actually information to make the decision. This draft addressees several very key issues, including the actually quality comparison of VP8 and H.264. I think that spending any less time than this would result in a situation where the WG was not making an decisions with the information available. Similarly, other  people that have written other drafts with similar or different views also need to speak up about how much time they need and that we make sure everyone has time to explain the key information, people have time to ask questions about it, and we can make an informed decisions instead of having to discuss the video codecs at many future meetings.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email