Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting

Emil Ivov <> Mon, 20 October 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144B91ACC81 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGfL8zA2_NGb for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39ED01AC432 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v10so5511288pde.8 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UrTL59JwPZRHAnj+tcZc42nvx7XBNPMuuf3m88g7dHk=; b=lg8nVyLXEchMTuVW6YgoM9L1oHI2mAyyDEdIizVGS9PBoJQ+9o9iQX9BfclVYoBAMq ZDQgWJbmqUCJk7cAcyRnYfXEb1/+dPvbAZxYjpSLaJeg6yJkEVoJYTFRjop+kh+xeb9n Gda+081vKoXqzyd4danv5bQjXyZBQxy6gC2Nxo/fNUCMeIXjVGHwhKMPgg8+EkjYhM8Z FJVvqIy9BJkippIkllggQhc+NVyE/sJZzwt4Cp6QH97KmJwLxd3y52VjydwHDvFQs0g9 lX7xohrQQelS1bQj0uy8bGft1UcCBdZBRaAdn04Hr805u5nhoeind5Q31T0/GhuyT9Im iD7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpnRxTo5B3ktxLg/MOP6aIVb/ze6DObN6IZUoWoPBt/q5a9voySXM2c+GqT0W7iJYI7T5Q
X-Received: by with SMTP id es12mr29153844pac.3.1413834123689; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g13sm9950827pat.45.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ey11so5875558pad.13 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id p12mr9906277pdn.95.1413834122692; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Emil Ivov <>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:41:42 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: "Cullen Jenning (work)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:42:06 -0000

On 20 Oct 2014 8:55 PM, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> wrote:
> So lets be clear here.

Good idea!

> Every time we checked, there has been consensus that we need an MTI codec.
> So right now this work is sort of blocked on that

So clearly, what work is blocked on that exactly?

> and we would like to get what people are calling webrtc 1.0 out before the end of 2015.

I would love for that to happen as well. There are a bunch of pieces
still being worked on but I can't find any that depend on the MTI
debate happening. (Except for trickle ICE of course! The delay there
is totally not the fault of the authors and entirely caused by the
lack of an MTI video codec ;) ).

>  I think that a pragmatic look at this would result there is at least some reasonable odds it might take more than one or two meetings to resolve this if we end up in an alternative consensus process.

It's probably worth distinguishing between finishing the technical and
the administrative aspects of our work. I am sure that the latter
would be much less dramatic.

> You said on the list you felt "the state of video codec development needs to evolve" before this discussions. I did not know what you what you see needs to happen in this evolution and how long should we wait before on this. I was wondering if you meant we should wait for the IETF to standardize a video codec (like the netvc BOF is proposing) but I really had no idea what you meant
> Do you think there would be a better time to discuss this?

Well, for starters, it might be good to have some form of consensus
already appearing plausible on the mailing list! Right now it seems we
can't even agree to talk about it.

> So far much of conversation has been folks in the Microsoft camp - keep in mind some of that group has said in the past they would be

Hm ... I personally saw strong thread participation from Cisco
employees ... but that might be because we attended different counting
schools! ;)