Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 22:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 E732821F8883 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 YHNmSMCWxvy0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-x22e.google.com (mail-ia0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572C121F856D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u20so32204iag.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XCkHSWiKNRjcjJzdVzZlSPlNXk9B5OWZQQvzVueeSOg=; b=Bjw5y9rp0yD/o3ZFt+AneE+3KhR1k+cVA2j6QayyjpSk4rLNfdxdDtrCtMPeTbQJ44 rMEM0riRpGXL8hnFT2lPh/fN6MQWYZsHZjXC49mHq9PlsYVgcO2y0TWgIxjgrKU7eOkc NbCl/3BrqWU/+1xDwV6PUlxYUkezkB2GSe+h+F0UGOILkT+4NNED+jGQ7ec6k+3z3ubz qUIiSuw8m+Zlm1RHHemRooCC/KIOp+jCYsgX2yalqzxkrvJ80Gg3O9v8Y+6xu56wcwui 4wpbPANW/n0S8PjBdxA9N/VN8MME9Eq5bsQG13Z82zXwGKxNTmprqG8L1dweir38eRGR nUsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.170.102 with SMTP id al6mr14147118igc.20.1361485561942; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.135.202 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484161EB226@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CABcZeBMg0AdhFj61S1hgz9WCP2JikLabrm3dAA36hyb99_93Sg@mail.gmail.com> <51263796.8030705@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBPoH+QQg1dPEoCc1AgwFVYdmHduwZ7W8qCahOr+Spz8eQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484161EB226@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:26:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD_a7Si5F+4PiggmLkAtTUaocrF=bYd0oy0bv-bZ6zzdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 22:26:12 -0000
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote: > 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. > Hi Matthew, Bullets 4 and 5 of the RTCWEB charter call out this work of this type as in-scope, with codecs mentioned specifically. If working group participants are persuaded by your argument, though, I point out that the W3C has already sent a liaison statement on this topic (http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1215/) If the working group wishes to be guided by the W3C on this topic, in other words, it can use this liaison statement as guidance. regards, Ted Hardie
- [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