-----Original Message----- From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: 07 January 2011 13:07 To: Elwell, John Cc: Stephen Botzko; Henry Sinnreich; Bernard Aboba; rtc-web@alvestrand.no; dispatch@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)
On 01/07/11 10:56, Elwell, John wrote:
I also agree that codecs such as H.264 AVC need to be considered, because of interworking with non-RTC-web users, conference bridges, etc.. An important part of the proposed charter is: "* interoperate with compatible voice and video systems that are not web based" This can turn out to be seriously problematic if we don't constrain it carefully - when we wrote this, my thinking was that it meant "if devices send and receive media in formats that we support, and the setup is performed in a reasonable way through intermediaries, we should be able to send media directly to them".
I see the use case that we *have* to support as the browser-to-browser use case. If we are able to support other use cases too, that is a good thing, but very much a lower priority to me. Opinions may differ. [JRE] I disagree. I believe the ability to work with non-RTP-web users is equally important. Take enterprises for example - they don't want a flag day when every user changes to RTP-web at the same time - they need to migrate users at a convenient pace.
One of the benefits of reusing existing protocols such as RTP is that interworking with non-RTP-web users and other equipment (such as MCUs) should be feasible. But this also means using appropriate codecs, to avoid having to insert transcoders. John
Harald