Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>]

I'll see your h.261 and raise one Theora.  At least it has one hell of
an encoder.

Cheers,
Monty

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Leon Geyser <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Anyone willing to create a draft for H.261?
>
>
> On 18 September 2013 02:13, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ted,
>>>
>>>     Seeing as this discussion stems from licensing concerns, I like to
>>> propose the following alternative:
>>>
>>> Mandate a video codec whose IPR has expired. I agree that video quality
>>> will degrade, which brings me to the next point.
>>> Provide a negotiation mechanism which would allow peers to "upgrade" to a
>>> superior (optionally-implemented) video codec.
>>
>> Negotiation has always been part of the design. The sole question is which
>> codec is mandatory to implement, not which is the sole codec to be
>> mandated.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>>     This will allow us to support VP8, VP9, H264, H265 or whatever other
>>> codec people like without the fear of transcoding or IPR. I believe that in
>>> most cases negotiation will succeed in upgrading to a superior codec. It
>>> will also encourage (as opposed to force) vendors to support each other's
>>> codecs, which is the right way to go in light of the political nature of
>>> this decision.
>>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>>
>>> 2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gili
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/09/2013 12:52 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>>
>>> WG,
>>>
>>> The chairs have created a plan for how to perform the Video Codec
>>> selection in our WG. The chairs are asking for review of our plan on
>>> how to undertake the mandatory-to-implement video codec selection.
>>> We'd much prefer to have comments on the mechanics before they begin,
>>> so please review now.  Proponents of a particular proposal should
>>> note both the actions required and the timelines proposed.
>>>
>>> The main goal of this plan is to hold a consensus call on which of
>>> the proposed alternatives we as a WG should select at one of the WG
>>> sessions in Vancouver. Such a consensus call will of course be
>>> verified on the mailing list for anyone who can't participate. The
>>> chairs will recuse themselves from judging this particular
>>> consensus.
>>>
>>> In the WG session each codec proposal will be allowed an equal amount
>>> of time to highlight the arguments for their proposal. After that a
>>> there will be a slot for discussion and clarifying questions.
>>>
>>> To enable the WG participants to get answers to any questions, the
>>> proposals in draft form and any supporting material MUST be made
>>> available by 6th of October. This is to ensure that the WG
>>> participants can verify or object to any claims or statements in
>>> the proposal material prior to the WG session. We chairs would really
>>> not like to see the proponents bring up new arguments at their
>>> presentation. Also the WG participants are expected to raise any
>>> arguments on the list ahead of time to enable the proponents to
>>> respond to such arguments.
>>>
>>> The proposed consensus questions will be of the following form:
>>>
>>> 1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>>
>>> 2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>>
>>> You may indicate support on both questions and we encourage you to do
>>> so if you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one
>>> over the other.
>>>
>>> Additional proposals than the previous ones are welcome, but must be
>>> submitted as draft and their proponents must notify the chairs no later
>>> than the 6th of October that they also have a candidate proposal.
>>>
>>> In case the WG fails to reach consensus we chairs propose that we use
>>> the alternative decision process as discussed in RFC3929. The method
>>> and its usage will be discussed on the list should the WG not
>>> establish consensus on a proposal for mandatory to implement video codec.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Magnus,  Cullen, and Ted
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>