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

+1

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Erik Lagerway
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:21 AM
To: Göran Eriksson AP
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC
3929)

+1  

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

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