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

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <elagerway@gmail.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 ACC2E21E8095 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 myu29+wM4DPg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7775A21E8090 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u56so1183319wes.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sEZ+qXX9oz1Gf7LcgGKVhbmWOxgwUb4wqGIY69ANV+8=; b=yj9kgQbockqWFjU0osg1XpTWDNhd8KhWSZFC8gAMb7TylwyEASCzM/pBiWGaeSJIpi A1d9rQj0CnY2J37oDX+GrE7fVcggTBSNIY3IpStDVQ6siOXOO511FSW9CoLW/mWrYpIj rWfPZs+jQSUbEiGL5cmWiQ48ES+c+8WaLlCevdCuk/uJKSbCBEIq/5bGeNZL8Ne0FeGj Phh4X903iPtknQBtxADLX14srZ+rA2o3Tw+R4kTAVkiFQPAdC/IV0Bd6Sjsikzkw0Fnz H2McWkP14YvGi+54EU3lVIBAycuh0y/47SaPJdVwW9NIWNlEAuyqE1pC7aj2LO5nyqdQ 5Tcw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.9.71 with SMTP id x7mr369938wia.28.1384390257590; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Sender: elagerway@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.182.200 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0FA5D66F-2680-4C58-A16E-DCE5531837E3@ericsson.com>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl> <0FA5D66F-2680-4C58-A16E-DCE5531837E3@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:50:57 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0sU_9GSaKHDL2vGEnUpvcPalBqE
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTamBZj8nb7e=vxaPDhN++v+R+GUtCAngYnd_q+LrU6bQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Eriksson_AP?= <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2476488cb0304eb1879b7
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:50:59 -0000

+1

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Göran Eriksson AP <
goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>; wrote:

>  +1
>
> 14 nov 2013 kl. 00:06 skrev "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>;:
>
>   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
>
>