Re: MTI Codec

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:02 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.****
>
>
>
It's not clear to me why you think an MTI codec would be part of the
browser, or rather, it's not clear to me why it's exclusively part of the
browser in a way that anything else passing over the wire isn't.

I'm aware of a number of implementers of non-browsers (including hardware
developers) who are intending to align codec choices, RTP requirements, etc
with WebRTC as a whole; I'm sure anything that affects them would also
affect browsers, but I was under the impression that this group dealt
exclusively with things that would not affect them (but do, presumably,
affect browsers).

With that argument removed, that would appear to make your conclusion
unfounded.

That said, I'm entirely certain that the choice of MTI codec is important
to browser developers (hugely so), and I'd therefore assume that they would
be active within the IETF RTCWEB working group as a result, where I'm
absolutely certain their voices will be taken strongly into consideration.
In other words, I don't think this is, or should be represented as, an "us
or them", but as an "us and them".

Dave.