Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

+1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has been made on
VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing harald's  feeling that there was
no change on the members position.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make
>> progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
>> actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>>
>
> The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in -overview: It
> guards against interoperability failure.
>
> I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box, connect it to
> everything else, and run well for *some* level of "well" - and I would
> prefer that ecosystem to be one where it's possible to field the box
> without making prior arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>
> This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we discussed it. And
> I don't see much movement on the specifics of the proposals either.
>
> We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So using some
> time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to make sense. (And 4.1 isn't
> finished either. There's one sentence that needs to be removed.)
>
> I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu. But I'd
> prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some significant players
> have actually changed their minds.
>
> At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll respondents have
> said "I have changed my mind".
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>  On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>>>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply because
>>>> wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than actually
>>>> finishing a specification that can be independently implemented by all
>>>> browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near having, as
>>>> far as
>>>> I can tell)
>>>>
>>> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
>>> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
>>> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
>>> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
>>> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -