Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)

Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <goran.ap.eriksson@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 6BD3621E8095 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:42:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzLPfwkv6zLS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A6F21E80F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:42:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-78-52841c72e704
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C4.5E.27941.27C14825; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:42:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.132]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:42:25 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Eriksson_AP?= <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
Thread-Index: AQHO4MT2Udzz66diJEqTAFzXhZXl5poj4zwx
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:42:24 +0000
Message-ID: <0FA5D66F-2680-4C58-A16E-DCE5531837E3@ericsson.com>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: sv-SE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0FA5D66F26804C58A16EDCE5531837E3ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW6RTEuQweHzkhb7l1xmtlj7r53d gcnjcc8ZNo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGUs33iOsWCTQcXGBxUNjIs1uxg5OSQETCT2 3HrICGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgCKPEq03ToZwljBJnj00Bq2IT8JaYtuIsaxcjB4eIgK7E3y4j kDCzgLrEncXn2EFsYYFAiVnvT7KA2CICQRKLv65hgrCNJE5P7mQGsVkEVCWOdSwEq+cVsJdo mH2PFcQWErCU+H25EczmFLCSuL3gNdgcRgFZifvf77FA7BKX+Dz3ARPE0QISS/acZ4awRSVe Pv4HdhqzQLLEqc1GEOMFJU7OfMIygVFkFpLuWQhVs5BUQZToSdyYOoUNwtaWWLbwNTOErSsx 498hFmTxBYzsqxg5ilOLk3LTjQw2MQLj5uCW3xY7GC//tTnEKM3BoiTO+/Gtc5CQQHpiSWp2 ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxrZ7i7q+vf7yvSdUMIFbejXbPiH7nXf3d349dS8/Wlj9eFbX 0SSeiYptf/vuMRy0C7obuXHv/EOyNwWEdMsq2iczv3xt1tw5Rdzsygxzp/3qmv2afrvP+Au8 vb0swXyd4YwrDPvef+RxyEqJrHn/WDl77WQ2gWp+nYbi10JRz8+J9P0teLVyuxJLcUaioRZz UXEiACLmWxhpAgAA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:42:32 -0000

+1

14 nov 2013 kl. 00:06 skrev "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>>:

Keith Drage said:

"Agree

I am at the point where I would prefer to spend the meeting cycles getting things we can agree on, rather than where we seem to be at the moment with an issue where there are two clear camps and no real sign of a compromise.

Ultimately the market will decide (and some parts of it probably have already decided - which is probably the reason for no progress).

Keith"

[BA] Well said. With most of the RTCWEB WG drafts either having completed WGLC or being candidates for WGLC by the end of the year,  with some elbow grease it seems very possible to move the bulk of the documents to IETF last call within a few months at most.   Polishing the RTCWEB document set would yield multiple benefits.  Not only would it get us closer to the goal of standardizing the WebRTC protocol stack, but also might well turn up an issue or two we haven't thought enough about. Also, once we move the protocol stack further along, we'll have more cycles to spend on operational issues (like monitoring concerns discussed in XRBLOCK), which currently limit the ability to deploy WebRTC at very large scale.   Unfortunately, we've been spending so much time on the MTI video codec debate that less glamorous (but ultimately much more important) engineering work is being neglected.

This is all by way of seconding your point that there is a real opportunity cost to the never-ending, energy sapping MTI codec discussion.  Personally, I'd much rather redirect the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force RTCWEB WG away from amateur lawyering toward engineering where we actually have expertise and could potentially make a difference.
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb