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

Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 17 November 2013 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
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 D35E411E8E42 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:44:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 YIXoy4LE762P for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0ABD11E919D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so878082iej.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:43:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=/GxMOFwjggADhglwpCzxbLD0dsm7cxIHqlN6P6jnlNY=; b=ROdCOfoTXjmIeiGJeBjGSeGhelzaFUb17RmuqcW3EjtU4Pk7qRW1imu5f8C0DxaKqH UW48YRvxFm9qX8ZyE5/JWtGmqF9UZYFbReR9QEwIdMeskat/qrNlviocCDPYgZztj57/ SnhI0BWkMpUl4PaYkDju2JDn0i89fau9iM21iDysCw631Eou17rdeKsrFGFs/828NMeY Ito/T9xKt2ExJXcP+mpPZ6Mh5Jnan+SESnbxuBAd+kyUrxmoSM40uk/klwrL58oHfK8/ WpUWExY7Q8oZUh4Wh2c1qAvCwFEPEMdhNNLfa97AEWitWve+w6SVmwICoXL/e1o66kSu y0vQ==
X-Received: by 10.50.39.51 with SMTP id m19mr11069373igk.51.1384724628184; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:43:48 -0800 (PST)
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
From: Varun Singh <vsingh.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:43:45 +0200
Message-ID: <5645151759529247262@unknownmsgid>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc131293239604eb665349
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:44:02 -0000

+1, to focus on engineering and operational issues.

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:06, 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