Re: [rtcweb] Mandatory to implement video codec?

[tim panton <[e-mail]>]

On 27 Nov 2013, at 13:13, Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Keith,
> 
> I think this really goes back to the BOF and ad-hoc meeting during IETF
> 80 and the chartering, considering our charter do contain the following
> text:
> 
> 6. Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported by
> a client to improve interoperability.
> 
> Unfortunately the minutes for IETF 80 Adhoc simply mentions codec
> discussion but no details.
> 
> Also Harald's email moving the discussion to the WG mailing list (8th of
> April 2011), includes a immediate jump to how do we achieve a MTI,
> rather any discussion if this is something that needs to be established.
> 
> I am quite certain that this consensus was something the WG was created
> with. And all mentions in email or slides that I have looked includes
> this assumption. Including the Video Codec discussion in Paris. Look at
> slide 3 where the slides states that we have consensus on the need for MTI.
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-rtcweb-5.pdf
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-rtcweb.txt
> 

Unfortunately the WG was also started on the assumption that the IETF doesn’t do
voting. It also doesn’t do voting by arbitrary closed groups.  

It seems to me we have 2 sets of incompatible assumptions.
At least one of them has to go.

One option would be to punt the codec decision to somewhere they do vote - e.g. W3C.

Tim.