Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 21 November 2013 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.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 638E31AE32B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:48:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347] 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 1jJNWZscR1Hv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D7A1AE329 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 594A2659691 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:48:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:48:44 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:48:56 -0000
On 11/21/2013 03:41 PM, Ron wrote: > > I'd assumed that Justin was referring to the fact that people were > objecting to jabber participants but not the blue sheet tourists > who packed the room for the session with a hum. > > So I'm glad you've made that (IMO obvious and important) extra detail > quite specific. > > > But that said, I think I'm firmly with Peter Saint-Andre here. > Taking this straight to (another) vote seems like a questionable > choice, with a very high chance of an even more questionable and > protested outcome (and precedent). [1] > > > My understanding of the current situation is: > > - We established consensus long ago that MTI codecs are a very > important part of this specification. > > - We've had 2 seriously proposed codecs prior to the last meeting. > > - We have people expressing objections to both of them, that the > chairs consider sufficient to declare there is no workable > consensus for either at present. > > - The sustainable objections to both all boil down to people claiming > there are insurmountable IPR difficulties. Whether that be mythical > risk, or clear impossibilities of obtaining a licence. > > - We've now had people resign themselves to the fact that this is the > blocking issue for consensus that needs to be resolved, and propose > solutions that directly address that issue, through the use of a > codec that is broadly agreed does not have this problem. > > > So to me the obvious next step would be to probe for consensus about > the codec options that _do_ remain on the table - and see if anybody > has an actually sustainable objection that would prevent achieving a > rough consensus that the concerns surrounding our original preferred > choices are indeed satisfied by taking this path. > > The strong objections that people have had to H.264 and VP8 aren't > going to go away, however a vote might decide - so unless those people > are going to retract their objections now (or the chairs are going to > declare them vexatious and irrelevant), then 'voting' for either of > those as MTI seems utterly pointless. > > By my understanding we so far have 2 possible candidates for a MTI > codec that may satisfy the IPR and licencing concerns that have > blocked us from a decision to date: > > - H.261, for which everyone seems to agree the IPR is exhausted. > > - MPEG1, which Stephan raised some oblique concerns about, that > might still prove unfounded with a little more investigation. > > Theora I'm assuming will attract the same FUD that it did with W3C > (since people have already quoted the farce that occurred there) > and that VP8 has attracted. All the other H.xxx codecs are still > within the lifetime of live patents. So if we can rule out H.264 > and VP8, then we can immediately rule these out too without going > through the motions of repeating all the same arguments again, > with a just some search and replace for the codec names. > > > So wouldn't a better first step be to: > > - See if MPEG1 can actually be ruled out with plausible indications > of real remaining IPR trouble. > > - If it is, we only have one codec left for people to try to raise > objections about that might be sustained. > > - If it isn't, we really still only have one codec left for people > to raise objections about, since there's obvious agreement that > it would be superior to H.261 in every other way. > > > Given the agreement we've previously seen on what a MTI codec is > supposed to achieve, I'm having a hard time seeing how consensus > couldn't be established for at the worst H.261. We'll all agree > that it sucks -- but I'm yet to see any reasonable objection about > why it _can't_ satisfy the requirements for being the MTI fallback, > in the absence of working agreement for a better alternative. > > So why don't we just skip straight to seeking consensus on this? > > Instead of having a vote stacked with multiple options that will remain > just as unacceptable as they are today, for all the same reasons, where > people won't have to actually _justify_ why they consider some option > or another to be unacceptable. > > Ron > > > [1] - though I'm not at all questioning the good faith of the chairs > in trying to find an adequate way to resolve this (or envious > of their predicament here). > I think that what Ron is presenting here is likely the only sensible action that's left for us. I am not sure if there's a possibility to just condense all the options down into this one. Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec, while leaving VP8 and H.264 as shoulds, as a whole and complete resolution to our situation? -- Libre Video http://librevideo.org
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ashish V. Thapliyal
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Paul Giralt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video co… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)