[RTW] [dispatch] The charter formerly know as RTC-WEB take 3

[Richard Shockey]

Better two WG's, one focused on the codec issues than totally punting the
codec issue completely and having no baseline functionality at all.  

-----Original Message-----
From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:07 AM
To: Alex Eleftheriadis
Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; DISPATCH list
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [RTW] The charter formerly know as RTC-WEB take 3


On Jan 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Alex Eleftheriadis wrote:

> I think this is a very good idea (separating the two activities). Codecs
have evolved a lot over the past several years, and there are a LOT of
important details that may be lost to the uninitiated. 

I also support separating the two activities, I would suggest into two WG. 

Regards
Marshall 

> 
> Making a decision is always easy. Making the right one is tough, and it
takes a lot of work. I sure hope the group (RTCWEB or another one) does take
the time to truly understand the engineering ramifications of the various
choices.
> 
> And I still thing that leaving it out would be the best choice. 
> 
> --Alex  
> 
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> 
>> Yeah. (sigh)
>> 
>> I do agree a common standard is necessary and perhaps the buck does have
to stop with us. 
>> 
>> I do not oppose including this in the charter. I do think we need to
segregate this codec recommendation from the plumbing - so those docs can
blast ahead as the debate on CODECs rages. Would we contemplate a WEBCODEC
group separate from rtcweb since these are activities with very different
participants and goals?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Peter Musgrave
>> 
>> On 2011-01-18, at 9:27 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/18/11 07:43, Jan 18, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>>>> I share the concern expressed by many on the list that including
selection of baseline CODECs (audio and video) is something which will
consume enormous energy and FWIW I don't see it as necessary for the
"plumbing" part of the problem to which the IETF is best suited to provide
solutions.
>>> 
>>> As I mentioned earlier, baseline codecs are far more critical for this
effort than for non-real-time web browsing. So someone needs to choose one.
>>> 
>>> It is my understanding that the overall work in this area will be split
between the IETF and the W3C, so the decision must be made by one of those
two organizations.
>>> 
>>> The W3C could not come to a decision for video codecs when deliberating
HTML5, and there is no reason to believe that running the same exercise in
that forum with substantially the same participants will yield a different
result.
>>> 
>>> What makes a substantive between the W3C and the IETF in this particular
regard is the procedure documented in RFC3929, which  _guarantees_ that a
decision can be made (as long as the working group agrees that the decision
must be made). I hope it doesn't come to that, but IETF procedures virtually
ensure that we can't deadlock on a decision like the W3C can.
>>> 
>>> /a
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RTC-Web mailing list
>>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch