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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

I support the rough consensus as presented by the chair.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Since others who were present in the room are repeating their position
> on the list, I'll do so too.
>
> I support the rough consensus as presented by the chair.
>
>
>
> Den 05. des. 2014 14:36, skrev Sean Turner:
> > 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]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>