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

"Chenxin (Xin)" <> Mon, 18 November 2013 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B63911E8174 for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jnwLDngV7BmA for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FEB11E8123 for <>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BAK08625; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:33:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:32:58 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:33:01 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:32:57 +0800
From: "Chenxin (Xin)" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
Thread-Index: AQHO5BlKWizBeFtfRUmj9AbINJTWmpoqgv/g
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:32:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl> <5645151759529247262@unknownmsgid> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE03976809D9D8SZXEMA504MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 06:33:12 -0000

+1, to focus on engineering and operational issues too.

I suggest to keep it on the main list now. The technical debate on the MTI video is enough. We need focus on how to handle this dilemma. I think that move the discussion to the sub-list will not be helpful, which should not need a long time technical discussion in this stage.

But I am fine if you think the sub-mailing list is used for the strategy. I am just afraid that  moving the discussion will delay the decision on MTI because losing focus and so on.

Best Regards,

From: [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)

On 11/17/2013 10:43 PM, Varun Singh wrote:
+1, to focus on engineering and operational issues.

Since firewall traversal was deemed to be a subject so specialized we couldn't debate it on the main list, perhaps we could have an MTI-only sublist?

I'll personally commit to reading every message on it, but I suspect there are people on this mailing list who would like not to.

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:06, Bernard Aboba <<>> wrote:
Keith Drage said:


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).


[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 mailing list<>


Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.