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

"Parthasarathi R" <> Sun, 17 November 2013 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B2911E8F3C for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:58:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.636
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CrxRLWi7JXET for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D518811E8150 for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:57:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A36019085E5; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:57:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120823; t=1384711060; bh=pOWn6328/W/ul1jsADza4Kt9RumaDd2TXx24BJ8n+r8=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EhKpDa0kRPH1yAWm201d7F9l1v12S4DWrkFxWx7wHmFDD6n34/z/z8x6k4Q7qPTVT ADOHpe7WlbgEltmwADELuKY2jfsuyY4KlFZP4Sp1uLwfCw1l9UKgYBi8q8oeapVgls heipCFh+ZHQYBsBPscm217gP0xO3EQBrfvM+GkMs=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <>
To: "'Erik Lagerway'" <>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?'G=F6ran_Eriksson_AP'?= <>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:27:32 +0530
Message-ID: <001901cee3be$80a45db0$81ed1910$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01CEE3EC.9A5C99B0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7g05mZPFatxlqeQHyvkJquQHgPuQC6qpuA
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.52890394.003F, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:58:34 -0000



From: [] On Behalf Of
Erik Lagerway
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:21 AM
To: Göran Eriksson AP
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC



 <> Erik Lagerway |
<> Hookflash | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 |
<> Twitter |  <> Blog


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Göran Eriksson AP
<> wrote:


14 nov 2013 kl. 00:06 skrev "Bernard Aboba" <>om>:

Keith Drage said: 


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).




[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


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 mailing list