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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> My bad.
>
> New question:  How can an endpoint that implements video but none of the
> MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible"?
>

Well, this seems like a generic complaint about the term "compatible",
since such
endpoints are explicitly not required to meet any requirements:

     A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is able to
      successfully communicate with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to
      meet some requirements of a WebRTC endpoint.  This may limit where
      in the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the
      security guarantees that it offers to others.  It is not
      constrained by this specification; when it is mentioned at all, it
      is to note the implications on WebRTC-compatible endpoints of the
      requirements placed on WebRTC endpoints.


So, perhaps we need a new term, but this doesn't seem like an issue limited to

video codecs


-Ekr


On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC
>>> compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so wrong-headed
>>> that I am at a loss for words.
>>>
>>
>> I believe you have misread the proposal. The term "WebRTC compliant"
>> never appears
>> anywhere in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03.
>> Indeed, the word
>> "compliant" does not appear.
>>
>> Rather, endpoints which implement neither codec qualify as "WebRTC
>> Compatible".
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Sean,
>>>>
>>>> We can not support this draft at this time.
>>>>
>>>> As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can
>>>> not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is
>>>> built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be
>>>> forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
>>>> <http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>>>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>
>