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 <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> <mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Keith Drage said:
>>  
>> "Agree
>>  
>> 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).
>>  
>> Keith"
>>  
>> [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@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.