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
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Göran Eriksson AP
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Chris Wendt
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Varun Singh
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Chenxin (Xin)
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video code… Varun Singh