Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>:
>> If the relevant browser vendors and other interested parties would like to have this discussion, it should happen within the W3C.

Ted:
> I point out that the W3C has already sent a liaison statement on this topic (http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1215/). If the working group wishes to be guided by the W3C on this topic, in other words, it can use this liaison statement as guidance.

Note that the W3C did not consult with member companies in forming the referenced liaison statement. I do not consider this statement to be indicative of any kind of discussion ever having taken place within the W3C in which member companies were allowed to be involved.

-Giri Mandyam, Qualcomm Innovation Center

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:26 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
> I'm going to again object to having the video codec discussion in the 
> IETF venue. The choice of mandatory video codecs within the browser 
> context is a presentation-layer choice and highly related to a 
> discussion that has already happened in the W3C context for video playback.
>
>
>
> Arguing that because the codecs produce bits and those bits go on the 
> wire and then somehow that makes it an IETF issue is specious. The 
> text of the JavaScript sent to the browser also goes "on the wire" and 
> is also out of scope for the IETF.
>
>
>
> If the relevant browser vendors and other interested parties would 
> like to have this discussion, it should happen within the W3C.
>
Hi Matthew,

Bullets 4 and 5 of the RTCWEB charter call out this work of this type as in-scope, with codecs mentioned specifically.  If working group participants are persuaded by your argument, though, I point out that the W3C has already sent a liaison statement on this topic (http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1215/).
If the working group wishes to be guided by the W3C on this topic, in other words, it can use this liaison statement as guidance.

regards,

Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb