[rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sat, 20 October 2012 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 A39AC21F860D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.493, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Wdx5lFgSMokD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s13.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s13.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4A221F890F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU002-W62 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s13.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:37 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU002-W62D02E8AAD031475EEE21A93740@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_b4d23681-3a5b-481e-ad88-fae6a78171e3_"
X-Originating-IP: [24.16.96.166]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:37 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111891794@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111891794@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2012 08:12:37.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAE2F690:01CDAE9A]
Subject: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity
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: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:12:42 -0000

I respectfully submit that the allocating the entire 150 minute session to the video codec MTI isssue is not the best use of the WG's time.   

Do we really  have to allocate 20 minutes to *each* draft?  Since 3 of 
the presentations are favoring H.264 and only one is pushing VP8, the 
fairness of this approach is questionable, and since brevity is the soul
 of wit (and argument), I believe that each side could probably do the 
job in 20 minutes max, including example videos.   

If we spend, 40 minutes on presentations, 30 minutes on discussion and 20 minutes on the combination of consensus and next steps, then that would leave an hour for other important issues, such as the way forward on SDP. 


> From: fluffy@cisco.com
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:59:50 +0000
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb