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

+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