Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
To: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:24:49 -0500
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

On 28/11/2013 5:44 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>
>
> On 28.11.13, 23:26, cowwoc wrote:
>> On 28/11/2013 5:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>> > if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
>>> > supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL
>>>
>>>
>>> [BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that
>>> interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video,
>>> the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today,
>>> millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.
>>>
>>
>> That's because servers are able to offer the same pre-recorded video in
>> multiple formats. The same is not true for WebRTC where:
>>
>>   * There might not be a server.
>>   * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.
>
> The point is that solutions emerge.
>
> SIP has been in exactly the same situation for a few years now and, 
> last I checked, it was enjoying quite the popularity

Video is a lot more expensive to transcode than audio. Correct me if I'm 
wrong, but isn't SIP predominantly used to carry audio?

Gili