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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 1C0651A87BF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ySTzFBNTJwF4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7AAD1AC3D0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r20so7930670wiv.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nGqUf3Z/KndnFUOy8iLtPIFfkqTTLzInfovkGgFtcvM=; b=mkZ3nv/3HhuhggUmKfr5Z0ZrELxHbLzJX7juwJ1BKiUK5be4A08IWzy2MB1fW1/rLt 2LZNXlSkw1mAW0aEeKvS913eC7RZI1zbB/uZphPg3JpNToCKXQGR+hOJLoGlqWG7ki4E T0S8pKHyhPcB3jhodB9xeV8zp3DvDbOG6H20o7G3wCxFCTPY35y7RPdYduciblJwlMuL dcCxbMnnoI8dzfLXldBTXCVbmuXWzGpinAbMoCvQhtIza+3NStzQbK2KYsVty7BOh2Wc J98QZ5FIV32Hi/f4c6l+iJofbuamRgMOgA5dMdBFIEL4EpIB9ti/wBbCUTT1TPNhhumd z4CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4/nXs9TMXjSm8yM1NogeUkRcx/QZACcgJQzJESvYJx0l4bV+kxo5wCiAa7zasdySq0BXT
X-Received: by 10.194.108.98 with SMTP id hj2mr16310421wjb.102.1418063453678; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com. [209.85.212.170]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pf4sm57593063wjb.36.2014.12.08.10.30.52 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id bs8so7917921wib.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.109.3 with SMTP id ho3mr26227122wib.39.1418063452221; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.70.16 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5485CC5B.2030104@alvestrand.no>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <5485CC5B.2030104@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:30:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtE1b-U_3oabjor=0jG5L4Z_9Rf_1cXsGQPXjp12x=Z0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3b9daf56b80c0509b8a07e
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/60l8cbfVua2LqiS7qBSTz5FgZuY
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti 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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:31:05 -0000

I support the rough consensus as presented by the chair.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
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
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>