Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Eric Burger <[e-mail]>wrote:

> More to the point, if the WG cannot come to IETF consensus, that itself is
> sufficient to let the IESG know the WG (a bunch of close experts) is not
> *READY* to select a single codec. If the WG is not *READY* to pick a single
> codec, neither is the IETF.
>
>
That's the point of my (1).

But in any case, much of the discussion is now centering around selecting
more complex choices, such as whether to implement any three of VP8,
Theora, and H.261, but only on Sundays in July (rain permitting).

My favourite exchange from this is
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09958.html by the
way.


> The proposal is DOA.
>
>
As someone merely following the debate rather than with a stake (or oar) in
it, that's my personal opinion too. I suspect a de-facto codec selection
will emerge within a year, and this will occur whether or not the IETF
mandates any particular option as de jure.

But I'm not involved, really, I'm only following along in my somewhat
obscure (but impressively titled) capacity of "XSF Future Jingle SIG
Chair". FWIW, the XSF formally gave up trying to pick an MTI video codec
some time back, *and* came to a parallel conclusion WRT audio too - both
decisions (XEP-0299 and XEP-0266) we'll be revisiting in the light of the
RTCWEB decisions. There was much excessive warmth in those discussions, too.


>
> BTW, per the rules, I am eligible to vote. Sigh.
>
>
That depends on whether the vote, or for that matter, the rules, are within
the jurisdiction of the working group, though.

Even assuming that is the case, it's not clear to me that there is a
consensus surrounding the voting rules - they've certainly yet to be
summarised in one place based on the discussion that has occurred so far.

There's so many points on which an appeal can be made, we'll all be spoilt
for choice.

Dave.