Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot

Robert Sparks <> Tue, 12 March 2013 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFEF21F8C99 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vH4gubxNTRkG for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B6021F8C98 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r2CKGjSN005180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:16:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:16:45 -0400
From: Robert Sparks <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Stuart Cheshire <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec discussion in Thursday agenda slot
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:16:52 -0000

On 3/12/13 3:39 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
>> * The decision rests on (at least) late-breaking news, and
>> unavailable information, and I am opposed to any move to get a >formal decision for a mandatory video codec at the meeting.
> Hi David, Gaelle,
> I am glad that we all agree that the technical discussion is needed
> and can go forward.
> On the IPR issue, my understanding is that Robert will call for a
> sense of the room on who believes that they have enough data now to
> make decision and, if not, what exactly is needed.
I do not believe we can call for consensus on this question at this meeting.

We _do_ need to have the technical discussions.

I am planning to take the sense of the room using the questions that have
already been published. These are not going to make a decision on their
own, but may help with reading consensus when we do make that call.

I do expect the working group to have this consensus call soon. As the 
have mentioned earlier in the thread, we hope to make this call on the 
list in
the next few weeks, ->well before the IETF87 meeting in Berlin<-. We 
there needs to be some lead time.


>   That will occur
> *before* any discussion on which will be chosen.  I am confident he is
> aware of the discussion on the list to date from those who are already
> indicating their preferences to wait for more information, but I have
> cc'ed him explicitly on this message so he can confirm.
> As noted before, none of the chairs will be making the calls related
> to the codec question.
> regards,
> Ted Hardie