W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2013

Re: MTI Codec

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:18:29 +0200
Message-ID: <5235CFC5.2020707@alvestrand.no>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Matthew,

whatever you may "feel", the fact is that these two groups are chartered
to carry out the tasks that are defined in their charters.

The charter of RTCWEB includes this sentence:

  6.  Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported by
        a client to improve interoperability.

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charters

The charter of the WEBRTC group does NOT include such a statement.

http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc-charter.html

I was part of the discussion at the time that led to these pieces of
language. There were multiple arguments advanced, and the consensus at
that time was to specify it like this.

I will not speculate on possible motivations for wishing the locus of
the discussion changed, but I will simply note that in order to move the
discussion, you need to get consensus for a charter change in both groups.

I do not see such a consensus.


On 09/13/2013 07:02 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
>
>  
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 15:19:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:36 UTC