Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97ED1A1B18 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:04:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y87ScgOPOCEy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x236.google.com (mail-vc0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B14901A1AE8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hq12so135611vcb.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 03:04:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=8UpytODkmGevzplpVzKype1l4YWPhmYm67ldaelT7Gk=; b=jirK0Wy+8ygQBnAeAOaSXlDf8vgxZOYLdcc7CwqHQsG4lyObDBc6s9Lvj7aENru4d3 GB7os+5bXtWqY8im1Q5QjU+t/NTqY0K1IEvGOhmZkw2yM9PZrdbPUcsuM3ZYQQ2oDmuC vkp8XMw4J8U361fZJPe+sgWCE3+V7ZfYPif9l3+/z3K/eoo71igReeVaInZTZ5s2WF06 FiDJR5miKGtwjEoIO7PHxGLrj+xC9g3YVSK8F3Jf0InjZHLQc6jA/JY/McVU1hNT8ckQ xISVtXgcVZLKMA5yo0rR+cV6simLa3oM9da6cDLcEJSrTYMD4/KucnJkm6N6HCbQgb/k No0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8UpytODkmGevzplpVzKype1l4YWPhmYm67ldaelT7Gk=; b=LBXI+uJ1lhEcFMDjcBLsgw3q3sjoG+lr4Kyp6vMsD10OA+CdJxuFCIMjpgqyODmg8u 1GJ9ahCR68MX6R233Y6dD20JXSgP8FXgSaz05FbQiRp0NsgdujkjZkvuRGpda7rea8B0 C/cWMk+x3wGCeHU2yQYrefcGZyh4sMsllysbtWcfw/kkjif+4rwRodqoEJvEdD5FqPIw crdxtlX7wlCvG2IbU7d+IvTljvVaOg2mjaqr/concpFnKoejXuvfdKqkgecFQvbNaIzc z3lnlb5u7KciNFrTJyoRvHZt6Tib4wr5Z/xUOrWkJ6EYCy1UYZhdbc9/yxC9sOAqrbaq imcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmxDjFf1b38In4S1+Lj70yPexXlU4PfEBkiwq3fuo09p8JtNQzqX+X5UhobLQQdtFlME6zp
X-Received: by 10.52.117.161 with SMTP id kf1mr667115vdb.65.1418123073687; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 03:04:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.84.69 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:03:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:03:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUECDWwLpXZ59i1Ly8cootYmaeZx-SUD5yhh+NtMvvFYTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547cbdd0e2bd90509c682ef
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Dii0_G7n-fwqWkcE8ASL1T-aIPo
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:04:37 -0000

 I support the rough consensus as presented by the chair.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about
> codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text
> that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
> editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>
> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m
> paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR,
> Time, and Trigger:
>
> 1) IPR:
>
> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
> particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser
> implementations.
>
> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a
> draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
> draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that
> adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>
> 2) Time:
>
> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
> meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
> opportunity to attend in person.
>
> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
> revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
> topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More
> importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is
> not required to be part of the process.
>
> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>
> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was
> among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.
> All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss
> the proposal.
>
> 3) Trigger:
>
> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s
> promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>
> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
> proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>
>
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing
> the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to
> add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In
> keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
>
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by
> December 19th.
>
> Cheers,
> spt (as chair)
>
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>