Err… is this for real? The IETF proved to be a decent enough venue for determining consensus on audio codecs. What's the value to rubber stamp a "no consensus" on video in a different place? Reality check, people: the decision on video codecs has already been deferred to the market. Infrastructure suppliers' and service providers' preference is strictly a matter of cost-coverage balancing, and in the end it will not change a thing. Browser vendors' positions are clear, but in the real world we are at a point where browser WebRTC exists only in VP8 flavour. Anyone willing to change the (pretty clear) course of action should seriously just focus on trying to show marketing people and decision makers some H264 WebRTC demo. Until that happens -- will it? -- the impact on the industry will be in the around of zero. Enrico On Sep 13, 2013, at 7:02 PM, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote: > As I’m sure many of the people on this list are aware, the IETF RTCWEB working group intends to make a decision regarding a mandatory-to-implement video codec for WEBRTC. > > It feels to me like mandating a codec (as it is part of the browser, not a choice of on-the-wire format, already selected to be DTLS-SRTP) is really the business of this W3C Working Group, not the IETF, just as the JavaScript API is the business of this WG. > > Thoughts? > > Matthew Kaufman >
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 20:40:31 UTC