Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith,

On 11/12/2013 1:31 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> Or are you saying video is a mandatory component of all webrtc sessions?

It doesn't matter what happens on a per-session basis. If video is a 
mandatory feature of all WebRTC implementations then it is our duty to 
ensure that all such implementation can inter-operate with each other.

> And even if video was, then in 10 years, either of the particular codec specifications will be an irrelevance, but webrtc might live on - assuming it ever gets enough specification off the starting blocks.

If the IBMs and Microsofts of the world can drop features over time, so 
can we. We'll use a deprecation mechanism to transition from one codec 
to another.

> In other words lets get a sense of perspective here, lets see less of the cycles on this discussion and lets see the focus back on progressing the documents.

To what end? The entire point of a specification is to ensure 
interoperability. Producing documents for their own sake is kind of useless.

> Which document do the chairs want to place most emphasis on progressing first?

Do you plan to ship WebRTC 1.0 without video support? If not, why does 
it matter whether we tackle video first or last?

Gili