Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-12-12 15:45 GMT+01:00 Adam Roach <[e-mail]>:
> I think that the future-looking clause is one of the wartiest parts of this
> proposal. On the other hand, it's the one thing that makes it different than
> things we've considered in the past, and is clearly a key part of what
> allowed it to gather the support that it has so far. So: ugly, necessary,
> and sufficient.
>
> Given that it's sufficient to gain the current level of support, the need
> for change is unclear.
>
> Given that it's necessary, we can't remove it, or the whole thing falls
> apart.
>
> And, given that it's ugly, making it more expansive would only make the
> proposal qualitatively worse.
>
> There's no point trying to map out large decision trees for the future,
> especially since we've had such a contentious time coming to some semblance
> of agreement on the current direction. Pushing more future-looking decisions
> into the text would only serve to give us more things to disagree about.
>
> And, as you point out, if something comes up in the future that materially
> changes the landscape, it's completely within the purview of the IETF to
> apply rational analysis to make a decision based on the actual facts at that
> time.

That would sound really nice if the already chosen MTI codecs were
100% RF with no licensing/patent issues. That's not the case so IMHO
the door should remain open for, at least, the inclusion of a new 100%
RF video codec.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>