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

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507C111E817B for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.585
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LDl7zlWzPZ7 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9705311E817C for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w33so150729iag.12 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3vKRVNIdyY4PdvAzI2kDMiGSt9/g27EamuzV5tUO5+k=; b=Xip83E2XvYfcmjjNVVqHAwkvfNOpllL1EDZWwV2mtrd82z8fIvDLgcgUGfdsFku4v1 Ve4rNBhbUX5jm4iEpd0lAymuOmHFHPP3HUgoDGCTjMKGXdjfr/ko4BKFlcIqPqZMyktD Fcbf6O6bC56KgIvzY10ENLxmXSbII3QSx0PDJwCS37ZBj9NJnI1xxvcY4kbtd9VDj8Y6 b4gkyK1tCWXGFR7sPfT+dKNPZQrdkY3otdNV6uqYxXNTfh7ky++K23GJKqwq3Yu2+v2o 5xPfHJW6gq0H3MBVc6cysm1ZlKU+EORdDlr1eJ4Pf789E5Z+rTLDrF9ORNnbWxB4XTix B2Rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ba4mr12978888igb.20.1363113194898; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:33:14 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: David Singer <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 18:33:18 -0000

Hi David,

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:12 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> I am sorry, I don't understand.
> At the last meeting, the codec discussion was deferred at the request of one company and with no reason offered.  It was delayed so late that people, such as my colleague, who had flown in for this discussion had already arrived when it was deferred.
> This time, we have late-breaking news which is missing important details, warrants significant preparatory discussion before the meeting, and you have justified requests for time from multiple companies, and you go ahead?
Magnus and I discussed this with the RAI area directors last night at
some length, and our joint conclusion was that the presentations could
go ahead in the existing agenda slot because there was technical
content to discuss.  Those discussions need to happen
in advance of the overall consensus call, and we concluded that we
could likely do that at this meeting without having to re-do it again
in the light of new IPR data.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I
should note that Cullen disagreed with this, but was not able to
attend the discussion with the ADs, as he has been unavoidably

Magnus's comment "Prior to any consensus question regarding the actual
codec the chairs will verify consensus to ask such questions." means
that a consensus call on whether or not there is currently enough
information to make a decision will happen before a call on
the actual codec.   If there is no such consensus, the call on the
actual codec is likely to happen on the list, as a two week last call
after the new data is available.  That's not entirely fixed as a plan
in part because we have not been able to discuss it with Cullen, but
that's the basic idea at the moment.

As before, all of the chairs and our AD have potential conflicts of
interest, so Robert Sparks will be asking the actual consensus calls
and assessing the results.

Hope that helps explain things,


Ted Hardie