Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 2/27/13 11:28, Paul Coverdale wrote:
>> *If* we're going to discuss codec quality, we need (much) better data
>> than this.  Google's comparisons from the last IETF are much more
>> scientific (though with the caveat I mentioned you have to watch out
>> for).  I'll also assert that if the difference is minor (+-10 or 20%
>> either way - number pulled out of air) it's irrelevant for this
>> discussion.  Even major differences would require discussion as to
>> whether they matter.  I personally don't see a need to discuss it,
>> unless someone has hard facts that one or the other falls down badly by
>> comparison - and that we don't believe it's something that can be fixed
>> (especially if it's an implementation flaw).
>>
>> --
>> Randell Jesup
>>
> So if we're not too fussy about quality/performance, what are the criteria
> for choosing a video codec?
>

When trying to figure out what a working group is *supposed* to be 
doing, I'd generally start with its charter: " the working group will 
try to avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties or other 
encumbrances that would prevent such technologies from being easy to use 
in web browsers."

/a