Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

On Sep 16, 2013 6:22 AM, "Chris Wendt" <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net> wrote:
>
>
> I would argue that because we have selected Opus and G.711, we have
already satisfied the charter requirements.
>
>   6.  Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported by
>         a client to improve interoperability.
>
> Can we move on and focus time on more relevant issues?
>

+1, the mti video is the already agreed audio-only.

If your video does not work, you and the calling/called party can discuss
about the ipr issues and politics that limit your communications

CB
> -Chris
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Ted --
>>
>> The H.264 vs. VP8 discussion has at this point been "overtaken by
events", so that the proposed plan below would be a waste of everybody's
time, about as relevant as debating the fashion merits of bell bottoms
versus nehru jackets.
>>
>> With Google having announced plans to implement VP9 (potentially with
SVC), and with the recent ratification of H.265, the industry has moved on,
and so should RTCWEB.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700
>> From: ted.ietf@gmail.com
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org; fluffy@cisco.com; magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>> Subject: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
>>
>> 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
rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>