Re: [rtcweb] Agenda for the upcoming meeting

Silvia Pfeiffer <> Mon, 20 October 2014 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B041ACF57 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dhq9pX4lSaVQ for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A941ACF24 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a41so4139967yho.22 for <>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q1BMaNXpmFwu4fdU5EtVIOlCybMBbC0Rgz6mL8xISBU=; b=jhBD34R/eHOviyj2PjwO6zhaMopae5zPGQk8ObX9MWWYnKwtgRc3R4ygV70WFD3atu hJqJGCQ+c7yhCRlK5GBn41au/mgvCUQA4o0JVWBnq1mIYDprgKOhNpgsxiaqrTgZrqJ0 wEj+L5usyez3pOXqMDI+C6gdK+ulAAynsm7ZZKrpsqHwv2M7oFa4yK2ZaZeSsXUxSDiJ /1O78zXH2KKm82ITxeZDhWz5xfYAyTIjyibYUWXg//6qEUl1ipp53i+aRIH+PMFHDSel x6hJRXpoCCFdXVZVpWxnBNhNqLpEPKNs1GS/C34TdAXN8hwMLPwyomv1vA6cI/P2o6Yy oQzg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id i98mr6086039yhq.169.1413842209587; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:56:49 +1100
Message-ID: <>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01634d6cabc68f0505e1ca00"
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 21:56:51 -0000

On 21 Oct 2014 05:55, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> wrote:
> So lets be clear here. 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 and we would like to get what people are calling webrtc 1.0 out before
the end of 2015.  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.
> 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?
> Cullen
> 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

What's the Microsoft camp? This far I can see a VP8/9 camp and a H.264/5
camp and both camps have their reasons for making the respective choice. I
think at this stage it's a religious discussion and not one likely to be
resolved until a completely new and clearly superior codec in all discussed
dimensions comes along. Is there really a point to spend more time
discussing now?

(BTW: I won't be at the meeting, so feel free to waste your time. Just