Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Comments below on the questions [MB].

Mary.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
>
> One of the remaining major technical decisions for the RTCweb WG is which
> codec(s) should be  MTI.  The issue has been on hold for over 6 months and
> the original plan to was the re-attempt determining consensus at the IETF
> 91.  To make the best use of the WG’s face-to-face time at IETF 91, we want
> to give the WG ample time to digest/discuss the questions the chairs intend
> to ask the WG concerning the MTI codec (or codecs).  We want to know before
> the meeting whether to ask the questions and then what questions to ask -
> in other words we want to inform the WG of the questions before the WG
> session so as to not waste time debating what questions should be asked.
>
> Without further ado, these are the proposed questions:
>
> Question #0 (hum)
>
> Do you want to discuss this issue at this meeting?
>
[MB] I'll answer this now - NO. [/MB]

>
> Question #1 (stand up)
>
> Please stand (or signal in the jabber chat) if you will be part of that
> consensus process for this question. If you're here to read email or watch
> the show, we want to know that your sitting throughout this isn't
> expressing opinions for the consensus process.
>
[MB] I'm assuming that even if one hums NO for the question above that one
can still stand at this point?   [/MB]

>
>     To many this might seem like a silly question,
>     but the chairs believe the problem is well enough
>     understood by those actively involved WG
>     participants so we would like to confirm this
>     understanding.  The chairs will also use to the
>     determine the informed pool of WG participants.
>
> Question #2 (hum)
>
> Do you believe we need an MTI codec to avoid negotiation failures?
>
>     Previous attempts at determining the MTI did not
>     yield a result but did confirm that there is a desire
>     for an MTI to avoid negotiation failures.   Recently,
>     some on the mailing list have expressed an interest
>     in postponing this discussion until after IETF 91.  The
>     purpose of this question is to reconfirm the original
>     consensus.
>
> Question #3 (open mic)
>
> Are there any codecs that were not included in the previous consensus
> calls that warrant consideration?  If yes, which one and why.
>
>     The assumption is that the viable codecs are a) VP8,
>     b) H.264, or c) VP8 and H.264.  This is based on the
>     extensive poll results from the last consensus calls.
>     But time has passed so we need to entertain the ever
>     so slight possibility that another codec has miraculously
>     appeared.  Remember, we want to ensure we’re going
>     to get maximum interoperability.
>
> Question #4 (open mic)
>
> Are there any new or unaddressed technical issues that will not allow us
> to narrow the field to VP8 and H.264?
>
>     We do not want to revisit previous discussions; we only
>     want new or unaddressed technical issues and will throttle
>     the discussion accordingly.  We’ll rely on WG participants
>     and our former RAI AD (Mr. Sparks) for help in this area.
>
>     We believe the technical discussion will fall into two
>     buckets:
>       - New or unresolved technical points.
>       - Licensing.  WRT licensing, the IETF tries not discuss
>         whether IPR is valid, but an IPR issue that can be used
>         as input to the decision making process is if enough
>         people say they can’t/won’t implement because of the IPR.
>
> Question #5 (hum)
>
> With respect to the MTI codec:
>     - Who can live with a requirement that WebRTC User Agents
>       MUST support  both VP8 and H.264 and WebRTC devices
>       MUST support  either VP8 or H.264?
>     - Who can live with a requirement that all endpoints MUST support VP8?
>     - Who can live with a requirement that all endpoints MUST support
> H.264?
>

[MB] So, are you going to let people hum more than once?  If so, I cannot
see how the outcome will be any different than the last time we had this
discussion.  I didn't hum twice last time because it made no sense to me.
I would hum for all of those and my guess is that many others are in the
same boat.   I was going to suggest you separate the questions under number
5, but I don't think that will change the outcome either.
[/MB]

>
> Thanks for your time,
> t/c/s
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>