Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really going to spend 2 full hours rehashing this?

Harald,

     What's the alternative? Whether the discussion happens on the 
mailing list or a call it sounds to me like you've got people with 
entrenched views. I'll take this opportunity to remind you of another 
option: mandate a codec whose IPR has expired and have clients negotiate 
up from there. This compromise displeases everyone equally, but it 
allows us to proceed without any further delay.

Gili

On 14/10/2013 10:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I've read the H.264 Constrained Baseline proposal.
>
> It contains no information that hasn't been presented to the list long 
> ago; all but the performance evaluations were presented in Florida.
>
> I've written the VP8 proposal.
> It contains new information, but only in the form of pointing out that 
> VP8 is more widely deployed, closer to being an ISO standard, and 
> working better than when we discussed this in Florida. It is also 
> being universally deployed in existing WebRTC implementations (Mozilla 
> and Chrome).
>
> We know that for most participants, the IPR issue is the only real 
> issue. So far, I haven't seen any of the people who were saying "we 
> want to ship products but can't possibly use H.264" saying that they 
> have changed their minds.
>
> Yet the chairs are proposing the following 2-hour agenda:
>
> Frame discussions and process and agenda: 10 min (chairs)
>
> VP8 presentation with clarify questions -  25 min (???)
>
> H.264 presentation with clarify questions - 25 min (???)
>
> Microphone discussions of pro/cons - 40 min (all)
>
> Call the question - 10 min ( chairs )
>
> Wrap up and next steps - 10 min (chairs)
>
> Celebrate on our successful decision reach.
>
>
> Don't we have ways in which we can make better use of 2 hours?
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb