Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 10/20/14, 12:55 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
> So lets be clear here. Every time we checked, there has been
> consensus that we need an MTI codec. So right now this work is sort
> of blocked on that and we would like to get what people are calling
> webrtc 1.0 out before the end of 2015.  I think that a pragmatic look
> at this would result there is at least some reasonable odds it might
> take more than one or two meetings to resolve this if we end up in an
> alternative consensus process.

Given the parameters being assumed, you're probably right that several 
IETF meeting cycles will likely be needed.

> You said on the list you felt "the state of video codec development
> needs to evolve" before this discussions. I did not know what you
> what you see needs to happen in this evolution and how long should we
> wait before on this. I was wondering if you meant we should wait for
> the IETF to standardize a video codec (like the netvc BOF is
> proposing) but I really had no idea what you meant

IMHO, if that working group had been formed after the video codec BoF 
two years ago, we might be further along toward a real solution.

> Do you think there would be a better time to discuss this?

When we can make a decision on a technical basis, not a political basis. 
The current situation involves "camps", as you say, and I just don't 
think that's a good foundation from which to make decisions.

As things stand today, the most likely outcome appears to be "two MTIs" 
(which we've done in draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio so I suppose it's not the 
end of the world).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/