I also think it is important that we should be able to work between devices.
However the devices I want to work between are webRTC devices and SIP devices,
and other devices that are currently using video codecs.
Unfortunately we seem to have got the mandatory to implement video codec stated
in the charter (without any thought or real discussion in my view of the
implications), but every suggestion that we need requirements to interwork with
existing infrastructure has been shouted down by certain groups. However that
does not mean that there is consensus not to do this, just that there is no
position.
Yes one can deploy infrastructure to do transcoding, but inherently that costs
(and why should one force the cost to be on someone wanting to interwork with
existing infrastructure), and potentially loses video quality (and should
therefore be reserved for where one wants to conference different codecs
together rather than on end to end sessions).
So fundamentally we are trying to address the wrong set of documented
requirements.
Regards
Keith
P.S. And I did ask a few messages back which documents the chairs want to work
on with higher priority, and I have had no response. So obviously they only
want the WG to work on video codec MTI.
-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Sent: 12 December 2013 01:10
To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; rtcweb(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [rtcweb] Why the Straw Poll
Let me try and answer what I think is your central issue here
which is: why are we spending any time on this topic.
We have heard from a significant number of people that they
think it is important for WebRTC devices and applicaitons to
be able to know that video will work between devices. It was
the number one requested item when speaking to the various
developers with products demonstrated at WebRTC Expo and a
significant issue on this email list. It is one of the
several topics the chairs are driving forward. We plan to
continue to do try to drive it to resolution. Note resolution
includes consensus for no MTI.
However, we perfectly well understand that you, or others,
may not want to spend time on the video MTI issue. Feel free
to ignore the email threads if you believe the outcome is
inevitable and put your time into some of the other things we
are also driving forward.
Cullen in my co-chair role (and I'm not speaking for my
co-chairs but I am pretty sure they also want to drive this
issue to resolution)
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
<matthew(_dot_)kaufman(_at_)skype(_dot_)net> wrote:
I believe we are way off the acceptable process track here.
First, there was a discussion and a call for rough
consensus at the last IETF in-person meeting. That call was
not continued on the list, instead a lack of consensus was
declared at the meeting.
Next, there was a proposal from the chairs to vote in a
particular way, and a call for options on which to vote. It
was claimed at that time that after the list was compiled,
the act of taking such a vote would be taken to a consensus
call. That never happened.
Instead the chairs are now conducting a "straw poll" of
their own design, clearly in an effort to circumvent some
very specific objections to the proposed instant-runoff vote
with restricted participation. But again, instead of
attempting to reach WG consensus for conducting such a poll,
it has simply been foisted upon us.
I have not seen ANY replies to the message "Next Steps in
Video Codec Selection Process" that indicate working group
consensus of ANY KIND for conducting a poll in this format at
this time or to follow the subsequent steps described in that message.
I am requesting that the chairs immediately suspend the
"Straw Poll"
described below until such time as there is Working Group
consensus to
spend the Working Group's time and energy conducting the
poll and/or
to continue with the subsequent steps called out in "Next Steps in
Video Codec Selection Process" at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb