Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

Silvia Pfeiffer <> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BC21ADFDC for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vNB8z7ZgKdhX for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B1C1AE160 for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id gq1so9328017obb.31 for <>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q1i6Q+FP//dfNBtvoISr3963hjRkDB0G1VZDjwr6HOE=; b=wTYmSBELKrNX1dXqzk2Z2OVYh8uZcG/EdgwFW1gYvoyP8yRAO71b2bj4GIwd6Rgf7D H0AafF9QqrqO5TJ6id1yfaDoQGE7xyexuI1HoBnd5WhOrGozEbYANXFOARPUwrxIUCsk VrmbrtxhNZA8OXeq22gZONB/HWT35V5Hi4y9BAXz5rD5j9WNhQHeyvyLp/+xwZhPMPca iVPIAAz7fDIoZUlOdrtIfx156++OyYGovTRDyFZfgSS7FbW/S7EdDM78i+OlBIq0mDDL pLbXbYycqom0YPxG+XI0fBxFiCjDYglSVHMCEJi8yvxi5eCosKDWeS91s+cdQyTiMm3X Fs4A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id sa8mr21656565obc.39.1385676385541; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:06:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:06:05 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: Emil Ivov <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:06:27 -0000

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Emil Ivov <> wrote:
> On 28.11.13, 04:37, cowwoc wrote:
>> I've heard objections along the lines of "IETF does not vote. We reach
>> consensus by evaluating the technical merits of each argument and choose
>> the one with the least number of objections".
> Note that these are not just a matter of ideology there are very practical
> reasons why voting can't be properly implemented here.
> More on that below.
>> My counter-argument is that this isn't a technical question
> Then there is NO reason for it to be answered by the IETF.
>> (we've
>> reached consensus that both VP8 and H.264 are "good enough" from a
>> technical point of view). This is a legal and political question.
> Exactly the kind of questions that the IETF does NOT handle.

Standards are created such that system are able to interoperate with
each other. Deciding to avoid the decision for an MTI and thus
creating non-interoperable rtcweb systems is giving up on
standardising interoperability. IMO that is very much a technical

What if we standardised power plugs and sockets and couldn't agree on
the shape of the plug and socket, so left it for anyone to do what
they liked. I'd call that a failed standardisation. It's the same
here: if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL