Re: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CAD12D11D for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.92
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ypFhFdyhXYS for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462CC12D0CA for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,449,1454994000"; d="scan'208,217";a="169305476"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2016 12:34:17 -0400
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 07 Apr 2016 12:34:16 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:34:14 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
To: Bernard Aboba <>, "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <>
Thread-Topic: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK
Thread-Index: AdGQQGaVsopMEmLrQ9OIr2RIykkSZf//+oAA//6mkVA=
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:34:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA751BE74FAZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:34:20 -0000

I agree concerning the increased relevance of WebRTC. This is why XRBLOCK has sent multiple info messages and more recently liaison messages to the IETF RTCWEB and W3C WebRTC WGs on significant milestones and LCs. At this point we do not know if future metrics will be needed, but in case there will be such work – which WG ‘that is more widely attended by WebRTC implementers’ you find as appropriate?



From: xrblock [] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:51 AM
To: Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
Subject: Re: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK

I was sceptical when XRBLOCK was created and my concerns have only grown since.  With WebRTC gaining more and more prominence in realtime communications development in virtually every segment (e.g. Web, mobile, IoT), an important determinant of whether XRBLOCK WG drafts are widely implemented is whether they are suitable for inclusion in WebRTC implementations.  The IPR concerns we have seen in this WG bring with them the potential for XRBLOCK drafts and RFCs to be shunned by browser vendors - and thus to amount to little more than "vanity RFCs".

This leads me to question the utility of having XRBLOCK remain as a separate WG, as opposed to having the work reviewed within a WG that is more widely attended by WebRTC implementers.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB) <<>> wrote:
Following on from the discussion that has just occurred in the face-to-face meeting.

I would first note that one only really needs a WG to deal with new XR block proposals if the required documentation status is standards track. Perhaps it would be appropriate for people to rejustify why this needs to be standards track rather than just first come first served or expert review.

Secondly, when both PAYLOAD and XRBLOCK were created, there was a view that both these were somewhat special, in that they did not necessarily need to meet, but did need to provide a forum for experts "to turn the handle on the process" and produce something where the relevant experts had looked at it; that in IETF speak is a WG rather than just a mailing list. I do incline still to that.

Maybe speaking with hindsight, but not sure that the meeting that has just occurred was "value for money"; it could all have been done on the mailing list.


xrblock mailing list<><>