Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Mon, 20 October 2014 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479D71A90D5 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSgNNshcMn1p for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D9C1A90D7 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1906; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413831338; x=1415040938; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=J3A9/6wTrESAn/X9Py/swD3/mHU/rfe9ziLhpRtZtqo=; b=guTMLtM70aea9allQbhRUx7F16gkcBFtBt+pasWRLUyApFpm9tTh3s6B 070od5TDt8b8ag/N7S8jNBofZrKL6KNqYDtoiwOjpDaDL4slbsgKDgNgH XcEClZicW7F2zx7M+HIQGyPZluGn5h4uXV6DeVu6iLYF9iff6ucK+/8hC o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,757,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="364645935"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2014 18:55:37 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9KItaGu029522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:55:36 GMT
Received: from ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:55:36 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting
Thread-Index: AQHP6WQkELuqOHwpNkKkJQp4VRk4Xpw4SxAAgAFk34A=
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:55:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:55:39 -0000

So lets be clear here. Every time we checked, there has been consensus that we need an MTI codec. So right now this work is sort of blocked on that and we would like to get what people are calling webrtc 1.0 out before the end of 2015.  I think that a pragmatic look at this would result there is at least some reasonable odds it might take more than one or two meetings to resolve this if we end up in an alternative consensus process. 

You said on the list you felt "the state of video codec development needs to evolve" before this discussions. I did not know what you what you see needs to happen in this evolution and how long should we wait before on this. I was wondering if you meant we should wait for the IETF to standardize a video codec (like the netvc BOF is proposing) but I really had no idea what you meant 

Do you think there would be a better time to discuss this?


So far much of conversation has been folks in the Microsoft camp - keep in mind some of that group has said in the past they would be 

On Oct 19, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <> wrote:

> On 10/16/14, 11:10 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> During this morning chairs call, we discussed the agenda for the
>> upcoming meeting.  The two big items are JSEP and the video codec
>> discussion, and our current thought is to have the JSEP discussion on
>> Monday and the video codec discussion on Thursday.
> As far as I can see, the temper of the list has been that it would be premature and a waste of energy to discuss the video codec topic at IETF 91. Do the chairs see things differently?
> Peter
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list