Re: [xrblock] Future of XRBLOCK

Bernard Aboba <> Wed, 06 April 2016 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5177612D149 for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EP18-TWabNgr for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065D512D0B0 for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e6so76092023vkh.2 for <>; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+3fLPsv8FNfoJsVeJv8lJ1cW4B0tuHXYPVnsp6pkXeE=; b=fo62bzfc6TOTOh7GypMTXLI3P5DAYDU0YSr6rJROJH3MtvNT752CDjmfw7HNCTazqw t2dNh7Wk6/Q9Ea6tVK5rY/qHbZvtOZUzJHpNCJDCn62Fb6e+DDjQg4KB1g3OZm2Tmex9 x8QC7zWnga3Go9VeRUd0C3tl1Nf/SWet20RFdjvZH+MCWCYPWMSCN1yrA7ywX1WmlZIt VKkfGJbbrbMeq+Kzxh8Lpihm555O3pDyQEal/2psNovgo4p+IPp3t0XQvKEaGsY/RnHb gw7hZW1PafNVmf8KvzHUIC4flhxbV7Sd0CKwgsQM53IUvCm0GQluw/uymTuLTPW4wi6I Lozg==
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; bh=+3fLPsv8FNfoJsVeJv8lJ1cW4B0tuHXYPVnsp6pkXeE=; b=lCCfO8BBj3x9YXBS15ygc+BDJGr+QXtaMj2G9jE9DEG+UzYgOfmU0Xlt23vsoDPasf XH05RN8tczeE1Pp+TfMMMVTfKhC/c3Ht78y/b+EICl6N3CDi0SKCpomKG6Rfm3TvhKvg 0+OWbq5FHAgA/95ocrc6Twk8tveR9+5UY2b1YUMxAXahixevkAFGCwnTIo6eosbAVdp0 z6k5ZdTtbTWWbxeXI/20FNo5vh4bWuMjWpY1cM7A9SpKvdBQhviPWHZrP2q8k7R7RcdT qiNwrddGjUer5ZajS3iRKb49u2ypQCoRy0KCVy3fOnDifn+UcXOENjuUDJp4jpKjCS37 TdHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKGBUs/MLO7NBNhQT730VZ+uHToYFeF/5mNrioEM13VnS/GjhhkgyywQ3qbwurNH+lu24LAjHu+Y4J4NQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 103mr15776615uah.122.1459979484034; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b0c40867cc5052fd7f698
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:51:27 -0000

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.
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> xrblock mailing list