Re: [rtcweb] Mandatory to implement video codec?

tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF481AD9A9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:28:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKEn9o04coMn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DAF1AD7BF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 75391 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2013 13:28:36 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 7352
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 27 Nov 2013 13:28:36 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE26018A03EC; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:28:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.157.132] (unknown [192.67.4.35]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CB1318A02FF; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:28:36 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <5295EFF3.9050303@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:28:36 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1E2FADBF-061B-4549-98B2-B1BFE06D8394@phonefromhere.com>
References: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EE419@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <5295EFF3.9050303@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Mandatory to implement video codec?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:28:40 -0000

On 27 Nov 2013, at 13:13, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> 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.