Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> Just to be 100% sure:
>
> This is the US version of "table" (put aside), not the UK version of
> "table" (start working on), right?
> This is one of the words I try avoid using.
>
>
We mean "put aside".  Sorry for any lack of clarity; we thought the
"until  about six weeks before IETF 91"
eliminated the confusion, but probably should have just said "put aside.".

Ted

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)
>
> Apart from that, +1 on both the decision to postpone and the conclusion
> that there doesn't seem to be a basis for forming a consensus on any
> proposal but 1, 2, 3 and 4.
>
>
> On 01/28/2014 06:13 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > Dear WG,
> >
> > After reviewing the poll results found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/pdfWd2PIhOY9y.pdf the
> chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an MTI is
> required for the WebRTC ecology to develop.    There are a number of
> options which did not garner significant support; essentially only options
> 1, 2, 3, 4 seem to have enough support that they might be the eventual
> basis of working group consensus.  The chairs do not view the other options
> as having sufficient support to warrant further working group activity or
> discussion.
> >
> > There is no obvious leader between VP8 and H.264, however, nor obvious
> support for selecting both.  Each has similar numbers of supporting
> positions and objections, and both have the support of well over half the
> participants in the straw poll.  Given that, we are no closer to being able
> to choose between them at this time.
> >
> > The chairs therefore propose tabling the discussion of a mandatory to
> implement video codec until about 6 week before the start of the IETF 91
> meeting in November 2014. This is so that the working group can focus its
> energy on completing other work.  We do expect to begin work on the video
> document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to meet its milestone of December, but
> initially without specifying which of the two codecs is the WG consensus
> for MTI.
> >
> > When we return to the discussion, the working group chairs currently
> expect to run a consensus call on support for each codec to be mandatory to
> implement.  This expectation may change, however, based on new information
> or working group experience.
> >
> > If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September 29,
> 2014 please let us know by February 4.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Cullen, Magnus, Ted <the chairs>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>