Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Ron <ron@debian.org> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 BCB161AE1C3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:27:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 ooYyq0NE_fFT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326C01AE00B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-50-7.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.50.7]) by ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 07:57:34 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACD34F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:31 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id PtpbKgjQup0Z for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:31 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1455C4F902; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:31 +1030 (CST)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:31 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131121212730.GW3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:27:44 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52:15PM -0800, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
> > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
> 
> More than one person has already.
> 
> And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
> spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
> crappy.

That argument is only 'compelling' if it can overcome the implicit
assumption it carries - that we should revert the existing consensus
that there should be a MTI codec.

If we all agree the preferred codecs have impossible IPR problems,
then the race to the bottom has been run.

There is no further distance to fall, aside from abandoning the
requirement for guaranteed interoperability.  And I'll be interested
to see what compelling argument can be made for that which doesn't
look like simply trying to completely hijack the chartered goals of
this WG and mandate the failure of this specification.


If you don't want something crappy, well, last chance to recant the
FUD about VP8 ...

  Going, going,
  Ron