Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Ron <ron@debian.org> Fri, 14 November 2014 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DC61A6EF1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uq129C_wB6BG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498091A0104 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-63-74.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.63.74]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2014 17:47:58 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E0EFFEDC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:56 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ECxU8Q8W-PvV for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:53 +1030 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz [192.168.1.6]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40FA9FFCAD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:53 +1030 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FA8A80470; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:53 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:53 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141114071753.GE10827@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHgZEq5t4-Cot9XkU_pfyfi0TBCUxfT79ZvpiLW=X5_KUQh5dA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ck_VtMnf6740rh0ku1Qct7s-xrJEfokg6oufEi4wgrYAw@mail.gmail.com> <D069AC57.49A8E%stewe@stewe.org> <D06D5403.49D1D%stewe@stewe.org> <544AE196.6080907@nostrum.com> <5a86546928b841e9b063354de2aa279d@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com> <20141114024252.GD10827@hex.shelbyville.oz> <19c4eaabf2e9420c833f86a2ab0f9bdb@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19c4eaabf2e9420c833f86a2ab0f9bdb@NOKWDCFIEXCH02P.nnok.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4HodAKL2Eo8D0jqOudhIPchXa1o
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:18:36 -0000

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:11:54AM +0000, markus.isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > >There has been some criticism over how Opus was developed too,
> > > but it was certainly a much more open and collaborative model than
> > > what has happened with VP8 in MPEG.
> > 
> > Was that "criticism" made in public somewhere, ...
> >
> >...
> > 
> > If my memory is simply failing me, I'd welcome some pointers to things which
> > back up your claims here to refresh it.
> > 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-7.pdf

I don't see any of that making a complaint about the process that was
followed or its openness.  Just a 20/20 hindsight look at things we
learned that could have been done earlier in the process than they
actually were.  Considering the amount of new ground we were breaking
in the IETF with that group, a "debrief" like that seems like both a
valuable part of the process itself, and a measure of praise if that's
really the worst mistakes we made somewhere along the line on the
first attempt.


> (But I don't think we should continue this discussion at RTCWEB list.
> The point was not to bash the Opus process, on the contrary.)

I wasn't really aiming to revisit Opus here, I was trying to figure out
what your definition of "open and collaborative efforts for standardization"
actually was.

We've been told repeatedly that the ISO is an "open standards process"
by the proponents of H.264.  Now you seem to be telling us that it's not.

I'm curious about the measure we are supposed to apply to tell the
difference.