Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

[Maik Merten <[e-mail]>]

This is IMO a very nice summary of issues and options.

Maik

Am 21.11.2013 21:41, schrieb Ron:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13:11AM -0800, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 11/21/13 10:56, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> Following an IETF meeting on Jabber doesn't count as participating?
>>>
>>> The "big guy vs little guy" narrative continues...
>>
>> I think that's a bit specious. If someone is following the issue at
>> such a distance that they haven't expressed an opinion on the
>> mailing list, I can't see how taking a vote from them counts as
>> anything other than simple, old-fashioned ballot stuffing.
>>
>> I'll take it one step further. I find the prospect that we're
>> allowing blue sheets to stand in for participation to be highly
>> questionable: letting the tourists vote is weighting the opinion of
>> demonstrably uninvolved (or less-involved) parties at the same level
>> as those who have actually been working on the topic. I do not think
>> that a blue-sheet sign in without any on-list participation should
>> be sufficient to participate in the kind of process the chairs are
>> proposing.
>>
>> Or perhaps I'm missing something.
>
> I'd assumed that Justin was referring to the fact that people were
> objecting to jabber participants but not the blue sheet tourists
> who packed the room for the session with a hum.
>
> So I'm glad you've made that (IMO obvious and important) extra detail
> quite specific.
>
>
> But that said, I think I'm firmly with Peter Saint-Andre here.
> Taking this straight to (another) vote seems like a questionable
> choice, with a very high chance of an even more questionable and
> protested outcome (and precedent). [1]
>
>
> My understanding of the current situation is:
>
>   - We established consensus long ago that MTI codecs are a very
>     important part of this specification.
>
>   - We've had 2 seriously proposed codecs prior to the last meeting.
>
>   - We have people expressing objections to both of them, that the
>     chairs consider sufficient to declare there is no workable
>     consensus for either at present.
>
>   - The sustainable objections to both all boil down to people claiming
>     there are insurmountable IPR difficulties.  Whether that be mythical
>     risk, or clear impossibilities of obtaining a licence.
>
>   - We've now had people resign themselves to the fact that this is the
>     blocking issue for consensus that needs to be resolved, and propose
>     solutions that directly address that issue, through the use of a
>     codec that is broadly agreed does not have this problem.
>
>
> So to me the obvious next step would be to probe for consensus about
> the codec options that _do_ remain on the table - and see if anybody
> has an actually sustainable objection that would prevent achieving a
> rough consensus that the concerns surrounding our original preferred
> choices are indeed satisfied by taking this path.
>
> The strong objections that people have had to H.264 and VP8 aren't
> going to go away, however a vote might decide - so unless those people
> are going to retract their objections now (or the chairs are going to
> declare them vexatious and irrelevant), then 'voting' for either of
> those as MTI seems utterly pointless.
>
> By my understanding we so far have 2 possible candidates for a MTI
> codec that may satisfy the IPR and licencing concerns that have
> blocked us from a decision to date:
>
>   - H.261, for which everyone seems to agree the IPR is exhausted.
>
>   - MPEG1, which Stephan raised some oblique concerns about, that
>     might still prove unfounded with a little more investigation.
>
> Theora I'm assuming will attract the same FUD that it did with W3C
> (since people have already quoted the farce that occurred there)
> and that VP8 has attracted.  All the other H.xxx codecs are still
> within the lifetime of live patents.  So if we can rule out H.264
> and VP8, then we can immediately rule these out too without going
> through the motions of repeating all the same arguments again,
> with a just some search and replace for the codec names.
>
>
> So wouldn't a better first step be to:
>
>   - See if MPEG1 can actually be ruled out with plausible indications
>     of real remaining IPR trouble.
>
>   - If it is, we only have one codec left for people to try to raise
>     objections about that might be sustained.
>
>   - If it isn't, we really still only have one codec left for people
>     to raise objections about, since there's obvious agreement that
>     it would be superior to H.261 in every other way.
>
>
> Given the agreement we've previously seen on what a MTI codec is
> supposed to achieve, I'm having a hard time seeing how consensus
> couldn't be established for at the worst H.261.  We'll all agree
> that it sucks -- but I'm yet to see any reasonable objection about
> why it _can't_ satisfy the requirements for being the MTI fallback,
> in the absence of working agreement for a better alternative.
>
> So why don't we just skip straight to seeking consensus on this?
>
> Instead of having a vote stacked with multiple options that will remain
> just as unacceptable as they are today, for all the same reasons, where
> people won't have to actually _justify_ why they consider some option
> or another to be unacceptable.
>
>    Ron
>
>
> [1] - though I'm not at all questioning the good faith of the chairs
>        in trying to find an adequate way to resolve this (or envious
>        of their predicament here).
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>