Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): WebRTC Encoded Transform as a WG Draft

+Sergio with whom we worked on the presentation of SFrame and SPacket at last AVTCore meeting.

Bernard, please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of the current situation at IETF is that:
- There is consensus for SFrame as a binary format.
- There is consensus on how to apply SFrame to audio content over RTP.
- There is no consensus on how to apply SFrame to video content over RTP.

> On 10 Aug 2021, at 00:23, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> (Chair hat off).  
> 
> I object to promoting this document to WG Draft, due to concerns about Section 4 (SFrameTransform).  Within the IETF, proposals for SFrame over RTP have been controversial and so far have not been adopted by a WG.  
> 
> At IETF 111, an alternative to SFRame over RTP (SPacket) was proposed.  It therefore seems premature to me to introduce an API that is specific to a protocol proposal that may not gain traction.
> 
> I have filed a GitHub issue here: 
> Protocol Reference for SFrameTransform · Issue #112 · w3c/webrtc-encoded-transform (github.com) <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-encoded-transform/issues/112>

Thanks for filing this issue.
Let’s dig into that there.