[rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 21 February 2013 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 08CC821F8DDC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, 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 nQdL8JHKjBEA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9F421F8D94 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB8439E0D2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:04:56 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DRTAsY6zEG2f for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:04:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AC0639E0A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:04:55 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <51263796.8030705@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:04:54 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBMg0AdhFj61S1hgz9WCP2JikLabrm3dAA36hyb99_93Sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMg0AdhFj61S1hgz9WCP2JikLabrm3dAA36hyb99_93Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)
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, 21 Feb 2013 15:04:59 -0000

Focusing on one aspect....

On 02/21/2013 01:27 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> RTCWEB I: Tuesday 0900-1130
> 0900 - 0905  Administrivia
> 0905 - 1100  Video Codec MTI discussion
>   - draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00 (30 mins)
>   - 
> draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-00+draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti-00+draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00 
> (30 mins)
>   - General discussion 30 min)
>   - Call the question of which mandatory to implement video codec to 
> select (5 min)
>   - Next steps (20 min)
>
I think this is an issue where all the people have most of the 
information required already, and new announcements that will make 
people change their minds are going to have to be fairly significant - 
and that if so, the amount of time required for pointing out that it's 
significant is short.

Therefore, I propose that we cut each presentation to 10 minutes, the 
general discussion to 15 minutes, and spend 5 minutes on calling the 
question.

Furthermore, I suggest we put this last on the last day's agenda.

40 minutes is enough, given that it's essentially yielding 1.5 bits of 
information.
(1 bit = decision yes/no; if yes, what the decision was)