Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Gaelle Martin-Cocher <[e-mail]>]

I don’t support the proposed text either, and +1 on the two points below.

I would like to point out few issues and request that:
(all requests are independent)
a) we have a discussion on mandating codec versus decoder. There was apparently little to no time at the meeting to discuss this and prior discussions on this topic did not include the three categories that are now considered.
b) The browser and non-browser categories  are not bundled together when making the decision. If there is no intention to revisit the browser category, I would propose that non-browser shall support H.264 (reasoning: most if not all apps are WebRTC-compatible endpoints and can do whatever they chose, non-browser is a narrower category which could include devices which have to support H.264 anyway)
c) the revisiting note should not have the same rules for the two codecs, as VP8 proponents are claiming that VP8 is free and AVC proponents are not, instead are claiming AVC is needed for legacy reasons. The note should be revisited before the draft becomes an RFC.

Gaëlle

From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:41 PM
To: Krasimir D. Kolarov
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

I also do not support the draft proposal for the following reasons:

1. The proposal imposes a dual MTI obligation on devices and applications.  We should expect this recommendation to be widely ignored in practice because it offers no interoperability benefits, while increasing footprint and adding unnecessary liability/fees. The RFC 6919 "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" is appropriate here.  Definition:

   The phrase "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" is used to indicate
   requirements that are needed to meet formal review criteria (e.g.,
   mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms), when these mechanisms
   are too inconvenient for implementers to actually implement.

2. The codec standardization process is important from a legal and IPR disclosure point of view.  VP8 has not yet completed this process.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Krasimir D. Kolarov <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
To re-iterate what I said at the mike during the meeting, at this point we can not support this draft, due to the existence of “unwilling to license" declaration on a technology required for compliance. The discussion on point 1 below during the meeting and on the list has not changed that situation.

Krasimir


> On Dec 5, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>
> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR, Time, and Trigger:
>
> 1) IPR:
>
> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser implementations.
>
> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8: draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>
> 2) Time:
>
> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the opportunity to attend in person.
>
> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is not required to be part of the process.
>
> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>
> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.  All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss the proposal.
>
> 3) Trigger:
>
> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>
> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>
>
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
>
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by December 19th.
>
> Cheers,
> spt (as chair)
>
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb