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

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

On 2/22/2013 7:42 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
>> But just because the charter mistakenly calls this out as something for the
>> IETF to solve doesn't mean that the IETF is the right place to have the
>> discussion. I will note that several other IETF protocols for A/V
>> interoperability, such as SIP, have enjoyed wide success without wasting any
>> valuable meeting time trying to standardize on a single audio and video
>> codec...
> You may have heard the chairs use the term "negotiation failure" in the context
> of selecting mandatory to implement codecs.   This phrase was taken from one of
> Henning's talking points on practical interoperability in SIP contexts

Yes, but it is also a good description for what's going to happen when 
this actually gets discussed. There are parties in the room who cannot 
under any circumstances ship one of the two options, and parties in the 
room who cannot under any circumstances ship the other. At least given 
the current IPR issues associated with each option.

Despite the charter, ultimately the W3C specification will need to be 
ratified, and having a pointer in there to an IETF document which 
mandates a codec which some of the parties in the room cannot use will 
be a blocking issue, and thus a subject of W3C discussion anyway, 
whether or not we take up valuable IETF meeting time discussing it again.

Matthew Kaufman