Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)
"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Thu, 21 February 2013 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9E921F8EBA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VMoS35yhRWxh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-by2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47D721F8EB6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:55:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD003.protection.gbl (10.173.161.202) by BL2FFO11HUB028.protection.gbl (10.173.161.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:55:17 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD003.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.620.12 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:55:16 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.200]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.154]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:54:50 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)
Thread-Index: AQHOEETUURfHap/5EkSqyxlSNpudjJiEc+4AgAACDQA=
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:54:49 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484161EB226@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CABcZeBMg0AdhFj61S1hgz9WCP2JikLabrm3dAA36hyb99_93Sg@mail.gmail.com> <51263796.8030705@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBPoH+QQg1dPEoCc1AgwFVYdmHduwZ7W8qCahOr+Spz8eQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPoH+QQg1dPEoCc1AgwFVYdmHduwZ7W8qCahOr+Spz8eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484161EB226TK5EX14MBXC273r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(53794001)(52604002)(199002)(189002)(24454001)(512954001)(65816001)(49866001)(561944001)(33656001)(47976001)(50986001)(55846006)(47736001)(76482001)(15202345001)(47446002)(54316002)(63696002)(74502001)(56776001)(53806001)(4396001)(20776003)(74662001)(46102001)(16236675001)(31966008)(51856001)(5343655001)(54356001)(5343635001)(44976002)(77982001)(59766001)(80022001)(66066001)(56816002)(79102001)(16406001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB028; H:TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0764C4A8CD
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:55:26 -0000
I'm going to again object to having the video codec discussion in the IETF venue. The choice of mandatory video codecs within the browser context is a presentation-layer choice and highly related to a discussion that has already happened in the W3C context for video playback. Arguing that because the codecs produce bits and those bits go on the wire and then somehow that makes it an IETF issue is specious. The text of the JavaScript sent to the browser also goes "on the wire" and is also out of scope for the IETF. If the relevant browser vendors and other interested parties would like to have this discussion, it should happen within the W3C. Matthew Kaufman From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:44 AM To: Harald Alvestrand Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings) Harald, Thanks for highlighting this. When I wrote this, I just basically took the same time allocations from the Atlanta meeting and trimmed them to fit. That said, I do think there is merit in having a longer discussion for a number of reasons: 1. I expect a number of the presentations to focus on quality, and that's genuinely new information which hasn't been covered before. 2. I'm of the school that on controversial issues it's important to allow extensive discussion, so people have a sense of closure. I realize others may disagree with this theory. WRT to where it goes in the meeting, this seems like it's pretty distracting, so I'd like to have it out of the way so people can focus on the remaining complicated technical issues. If the only reason is to keep it short, presumably the chairs can manage that. Best, -Ekr On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: RTCWEB I: Tuesday 0900-1130 0900 - 0905 Administrivia 0905 - 1100 Video Codec MTI discussion - draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00 (30 mins) - draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-00+draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti-00+draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00 (30 mins) - General discussion 30 min) - Call the question of which mandatory to implement video codec to select (5 min) - Next steps (20 min) I think this is an issue where all the people have most of the information required already, and new announcements that will make people change their minds are going to have to be fairly significant - and that if so, the amount of time required for pointing out that it's significant is short. Therefore, I propose that we cut each presentation to 10 minutes, the general discussion to 15 minutes, and spend 5 minutes on calling the question. Furthermore, I suggest we put this last on the last day's agenda. 40 minutes is enough, given that it's essentially yielding 1.5 bits of information. (1 bit = decision yes/no; if yes, what the decision was)
- [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings Suhas Nandakumar
- [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Mandyam, Giridhar
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion… Ron