On 30 Nov 2013, at 16:08, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/28/2013 7:27 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> In a similar vein, can anyone point out what we get if the IETF were to agree on a single MTI video codec for WebRTC? >> What is the upside to making this herculean effort? > > > basic interoperability, without prior agreement. If making something MTI in a spec guaranteed that interoperability, I wouldn’t have asked. This is not a bikeshed decision. For an implementer, there appear to be significant commercial/legal implications that overshadow any technical considerations, or any spec “compliance” for that matter. > but perhaps you are asking a deeper question? Yes, I was interested in the objective for continuing to insist on a decision, given that the above guarantee doesn’t seem to hold at all under the current circumstances, and there is likely to be significant collateral damage from any decision. Right now it seems to me that focusing on this decision mostly serves to slow down WebRTC. But then I’m just an interested bystander. That’s why I’m asking. At a minimum, I’d expect continued work on such a decision to be entirely decoupled from the technical work. (I also tend to believe Eric’s Solomonic proposal hits the mark, but getting rid of the process block is more important.) Grüße, Carsten