Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:26:31PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Ok, so now that we've had one round of the usual debate that won't
> terminate, *how* much time on the agenda do we really want to spend
> debating the potential merits or flaws of codecs that some of us
> either will or will not use no matter what happens in the meeting?

If you feel that the discussion has exhausted all the rationale
that you have to offer, perhaps you'd like to summarise what you
see as the potential merits and flaws of each candidate for us?

"I will not use it no matter what", isn't much of a technical
argument.

"I cannot use it because people are still fighting in the courts
 over who actually has a licence and how much one should cost",
is more than a technical problem, it's a real and present, and
apparently quite enduring danger haunting H.264, and not just for
the people otherwise ineligible to get a licence for it at all.

Am I forgetting one, or is it really now the most litigated codec
in the history of all codecs?


But perhaps you have some other list of pros and cons that
somehow changes that balance?  I'd certainly like to see a
concise summary of what I'm supposedly missing that means
VP8 isn't technically the no-brainer choice to make here, 
in pretty much every respect that has been discussed.


> I really think there's more important things to discuss and specify.

I agree.  But until we get past the question of MTI codecs that
will ensure interoperability, the risk remains that those things
will just be Rearranging The Deck Chairs.  Again.

So let's get some consensus on a summary of pros and cons for
each, that will give us some reasoned basis to back whatever
decision we do arrive at on this, and let us really move on.

 Double Hulled and Hopeful This Time,
 Ron