Subject: [rtcweb] More elbow grease on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage, please

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:02:46 -0700

I just re-read draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06.  Unfortunately there are enough open issues left in this document to drive a convoy of trucks through, and a number of those issues have been open for *years* (e.g. some of these relate to problems that were recognized years before WebRTC came on the scene, but are still open, like simulcast/layered coding).  
Depressing to realize that even if the MTI video codec issues were to be resolved, we might *still* have interop headaches, but that's where I think we are.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:50:37 +0200

Thanks,

We definitely needs review of the draft. And we are just getting going
on a doing a revision that tries to reduce the list of open issues
significantly. So getting input on the issues and flagging new issues is
highly appreciated.

On 2013-04-20 04:02, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I just re-read draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-06.  Unfortunately there are
> enough open issues left in this document to drive a convoy of trucks
> through, and a number of those issues have been open for *years* (e.g.
> some of these relate to problems that were recognized years before
> WebRTC came on the scene, but are still open, like simulcast/layered
> coding).  

Yes, there are some issue especially related to more advanced functions
around multi-stream transmission and layered coding where we don't yet
have finished specifications to reference yet. I agree that these have
been known for quite a long time. But from my perspective, the market
hasn't been desiring standardization of these functionalities, everyone
has been happy to have their own private silo of functionality where
things function by convention, rather than specification. I have been
actively working to get going on resolving these things for quite some
time.

> 
> Depressing to realize that even if the MTI video codec issues were to be
> resolved, we might *still* have interop headaches, but that's where I
> think we are.  

>From my perspective functionality that isn't mature enough will have to
be thrown out. I fear that will include some of my darlings. But that is
the reality of umbrella standardization is that you have to work with
what you have. For things that aren't ready enough to wait for, then you
publish and revisit later and see if they can be added.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------