Re: MTI Codec

A standard is not decided by the industry out of the IETF or W3C. Or it
should not be. Or may be you are talking about "facto" standards.

Iñaki Baz Castillo
El 13/09/2013 22:41, "Marocco Enrico" <>

> 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)" <
>  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 21:07:57 UTC