Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)

Bernard Aboba <> Wed, 13 November 2013 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C262311E812B for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:06:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tuvz14HOae+O for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B084B11E810C for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W41 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:06:06 -0800
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <BLU169-W413B6A0584136B67EC8A8A93F90@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_cda053e0-b035-4b08-89eb-8bd77443ff31_"
From: Bernard Aboba <>
To: "" <>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:06:06 -0800
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2013 23:06:06.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEF1A9F0:01CEE0C4]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] opportunity cost (was MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:06:13 -0000

Keith Drage said: 
 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.