Hi Not meaning to express any preference in any direction but more a question to the more experiened IETFers. My impression here is that algorithms devised outside the IETF are rarely mandated in IETF frameworks. Two examples that I can come up with are SRTP (RFC3711): Only specifies the framework for secure RTP but does not mandate any encryption/authentication algorithms. Not sure if excryption algos are specified in separate RFC's FECFRAME (RFC6015): Specifies the framework for generic FEC, generic enough to plug in any FEC algo, the actual FEC algos are specified in separate drafs (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/fecframe/) Perhaps there are similar examples in other IETF areas that can serve as guidance ?, you may want to ping the eriIetf list on this (I leave it up to you) So to me it seems like there is preference to _not_ mandate algorithms (compression, fec, encryption) in IETF frameworks (I can imagine one specific reason to this). And... as I believe that RTC-Web will be some kind of framework I would say that this would apply here as well ?. Please feel free to bash my conclusion. /Ingemar ------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:38:42 +0000 From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00 To: <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>, <harald@alvestrand.no> Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no, dispatch@ietf.org, ted.ietf@gmail.com Message-ID: <DD8B10B86502AB488CB2D3DB4C546E3806DA99@008-AM1MPN1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Peter, all, About the video codec: Are there any arguments on why VP8 would not have IPR issues? It is available as an open source implementation, but that does not mean there are no IPR against it. My understanding is that the IPR situation wrt. VP8 is still unclear and thus risky. The other issue with VP8 is, as far as I know, the lack of a clear spec out of which independent interoperable implementations can be created. So I don't at least buy the argument that we should choose VP8 as mandatory to implement video codec because of IPR reasons. I'm working on a separate review on Harald's drafts (thanks for putting them together) and will come back to the codec issue there in more detail, but just wanted to respond to Peter's point here. Regards, Markus From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Peter Musgrave Sent: 17 December, 2010 13:48 To: Harald Alvestrand Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@ietf.org; Ted Hardie Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00 I'd also like to echo Alan's thanks for these drafts. The protocol doc is very clear. [If you read only one dispatch draft this Christmas, make it this one. ;-) ] One observation to the group. The mandatory to implement video CODEC is VP8 (presumably since it does not have IPR issues - which some other choices would have). Regards, Peter Musgrave Nits Introduction s/veichle/vehicle/ Section 2 Para "Within each.." s/implementaiton/implementation/ Section 4 Para1 "such as" (something missing here?) Section 5 Para2 "There is no third mandatory to implement" ? Was there a mention of a third before. Not sure why this statement is there. On 2010-11-10, at 6:34 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: This is the overview document for the IETF-related RTC-WEB work. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:31:05 -0800 (PST) From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org><mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org> To: harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no> A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols Revision: 00 Title: Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications Creation_date: 2010-11-11 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 9 Abstract: This document gives an overview of a protocol suite intended for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in browsers - "real time communication on the Web". It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully specified and on the right publication track. This work is an attempt to synthesize the input of many people, but makes no claims to fully represent the views of any of them. All parts of the document should be regarded as open for discussion. The IETF Secretariat. _______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org<mailto:dispatch@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch