Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB needs an Internet Codec

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:28:01AM -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 08:25 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > On 09/04/2012 11:30 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
> >> Maybe an stupid question, but how it is planned to enforce the
> >> mandated codecs implementation? What prevents any of those
> >> "corporations" not implementing a mandated codec in their WebRTC
> >> products?
> >
> > My first chance to quote the new, Web-page-format Tao of IETF:
> >
> > "One more thing that is important for newcomers: the IETF in no way
> > "runs the Internet", despite what some people mistakenly might say.
> > The IETF makes voluntary standards that are often adopted by Internet
> > users, but it does not control, or even patrol, the Internet. If your
> > interest in the IETF is because you want to be part of the overseers,
> > you may be badly disappointed by the IETF."
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
> >
> > There is no protocol police; anyone can implement a product that
> > implements only part of an IETF standard. They just can't truthfully
> > claim to have implemented that IETF standard.
> 
> To the extent that the IETF has any power, it is an *indirect* power. 
> If a standard is valued, then organisations (at their own discretion)
> may start to write "Must implement RFCxxxx" into requests for proposals,
> and choose (or not choose) to spend their money buying products that
> conform or do not conform.

Which in turn is of course precisely the compelling reason for Opus to be
explicitly specified here - so that _rtcweb_ *can* have a chance of being
a standard of value, which promises the people who follow it high-quality
results and interoperability with any others who implement the standard.

There are already plenty of Go It Alone, ad hoc solutions, which to date
have little to no market traction.  Anything which performs worse than
they do is unlikely to be attractive, and anything which doesn't promise
real interoperability doesn't solve the problem which has prevented them
from being widely used outside of small disjoint circles.

"The Market" has already decided.  It decided it wanted a Real standard
for this.  Our job here is to give them one that doesn't totally suck.

It's not about "forcing Opus on people who don't want it", it's about
making rtcweb actually work for all those people who are serious about
wanting something that actually works.  We're clearly not going to give
them that by saying: "Here's some valve-age technology that's been all
but obsolete for decades now - if you want this to be Any Good, you'll
have to figure that part out for yourselves.  Good Luck with that!"

However much valves might be the stuff of True Audiophile wet dreams,
that just won't fly.  And I'm pretty sure almost everyone here knows it.

If there's something _better_ than Opus for this, I'd love to hear all
about it.  But talk of things that are strictly and/or vastly worse is
kind of hard to take seriously.  I can see how some people might be
feeling a little frustrated at watching that tack push ever closer to
the wind.

  Luff and KISSes,
  Ron