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

Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net> Thu, 14 November 2013 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
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 6209221E80D8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 v5U66094dK-z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com (mail-qe0-f53.google.com [209.85.128.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B2821E80CB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id cy11so873929qeb.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=dpsswkIDLX9yKsquKRleHBRBqk/0EtD9voBVp7ccRuw=; b=YxvKrZq1iqFR+VEUoSv23qLZFyYGiNpbRAfxiNtq9/cbnrDIhCYSgdrlZBBfxkobR1 S+HTxfzOayQ6VTWdG6C9e/bIgkovXXfFNsyj1Bh2X5IT2nOu4E7fAeG9BuUOnik/acE6 85H57nHbwTqNitLLBhSLUTFvCJawszDs8YllkSraZGU0AcCOOMj6q9V2fkK2STqOTo2a YZVt+A6SwVWLn0KJS4UiSOTgYvnFP+MKlPuXZHoPxoC8QKGc2EiWrW+tWK5/RXEfozCG g0r3Sl49/EdaR1Xn2v3ROioi+juTjArKDa7IG6sBi/tWWWLFEWU5snhFzcv11DOxcxiI A+sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlHG1lCCOQRiMuQ2to0zjuZNoU9lCoPDYLVtJt6Fy5gPvP4BWwlDt4lTNWeLYgKpnolNTr9
X-Received: by 10.224.89.73 with SMTP id d9mr71718738qam.5.1384395572610; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.113] (c-68-83-240-221.hsd1.pa.comcast.net. [68.83.240.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a9sm1254452qed.6.2013.11.13.18.19.31 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DBEF57EF-160F-4721-AE14-493858B4711D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:19:30 -0500
Message-Id: <0C08339C-A462-4846-818F-3942851E56D8@chriswendt.net>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
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 02:19:38 -0000

+1 

On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>; wrote:

> 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