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@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:07 AM To: Alex Eleftheriadis Cc: rtc-web@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@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
_______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch