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

Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <creslin@digium.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 5936E11E8145 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:27:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ECrmOtn37huH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5758311E80F9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so5108565lab.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:25:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MbNjVFe8RYRtdsY/2ReNYtgc8f6XhxkMTLK//jfP7HU=; b=jh3kemNf26wtSVO/4++ZpGY4cWH6LT+xKBbXw7dbOueXRGCX4knomviGdQYrJGUenA +HfTIAELU6nraaXAjmsrTfxHWDLxjco2hD3EdBk9Tfb9MyJXksYuwiKTgnOaEzPUIOai ysdrFZK+DWzKU4ap8L5zT94k+2y22gFG9t5XjBR2wpjjejiqZdA3cb+HDlwspYnAwTct 0uvZxFVQXNBFnKlFppEMwr41DP2l4OZNhUpO6yF2c1bvMm1XF2ERZo2vbUmCaAtsRHha rIGVQ7Ou8U0kxBlATZZsOwOdTgaEVGV0fb1AvkXHN5+4q3s3e09hZuYKpt8Nb6bAK6zx jORg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYHJBS35k6ef8nrPhK36iXvK5vzRFN3eV83AlcTFJGfW6L/cG6+PqjyWqlWmhFFYfOE25J
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.42 with SMTP id 10mr15260973laz.22.1384791946684; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:25:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.132.102 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:25:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE03976809D9D8@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl> <5645151759529247262@unknownmsgid> <52899BC0.2030909@alvestrand.no> <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE03976809D9D8@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:25:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHZ_z=y74gG9Tx0=9Q8M+K1mSqfH+_uHX-6ZL-8WNeUhwDfaNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com>
To: "Chenxin (Xin)" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:27:45 -0000

+1

Matthew Fredrickson

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Chenxin (Xin)
<hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>; wrote:
> +1, to focus on engineering and operational issues too.
>
>
>
>
>
> I suggest to keep it on the main list now. The technical debate on the MTI
> video is enough. We need focus on how to handle this dilemma. I think that
> move the discussion to the sub-list will not be helpful, which should not
> need a long time technical discussion in this stage.
>
>
>
> But I am fine if you think the sub-mailing list is used for the strategy. I
> am just afraid that  moving the discussion will delay the decision on MTI
> because losing focus and so on.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>      Xin
>
>
>
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:47 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC
> 3929)
>
>
>
> On 11/17/2013 10:43 PM, Varun Singh wrote:
>
> +1, to focus on engineering and operational issues.
>
>
> Since firewall traversal was deemed to be a subject so specialized we
> couldn't debate it on the main list, perhaps we could have an MTI-only
> sublist?
>
> I'll personally commit to reading every message on it, but I suspect there
> are people on this mailing list who would like not to.
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:06, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>; wrote:
>
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rtcweb mailing list
>
> rtcweb@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>