On 30 Nov 2013, at 16:08, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 11/28/2013 7:27 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
In a similar vein, can anyone point out what we get if the IETF were to
agree on a single MTI video codec for WebRTC?
What is the upside to making this herculean effort?
basic interoperability, without prior agreement.
If making something MTI in a spec guaranteed that interoperability, I wouldn’t
have asked.
This is not a bikeshed decision. For an implementer, there appear to be
significant commercial/legal implications that overshadow any technical
considerations, or any spec “compliance” for that matter.
but perhaps you are asking a deeper question?
Yes, I was interested in the objective for continuing to insist on a decision,
given that the above guarantee doesn’t seem to hold at all under the current
circumstances, and there is likely to be significant collateral damage from any
decision.
Right now it seems to me that focusing on this decision mostly serves to slow
down WebRTC.
But then I’m just an interested bystander. That’s why I’m asking.
At a minimum, I’d expect continued work on such a decision to be entirely
decoupled from the technical work. (I also tend to believe Eric’s Solomonic
proposal hits the mark, but getting rid of the process block is more important.)
Grüße, Carsten