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

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Allen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> We are not re-opening this discussion. This list discussion is the
> decision making process.
>
> What took place in Honolulu was only a consensus hum of those present in
> the room.
>
> In IETF all decisions are made on the list and it was clearly stated by
> the chair in Honolulu that the decision would need to be endorsed on the
> list.
>
> On 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
>
> I note the small word "an".


> If we decide on two MTI video codecs then we have clearly failed to meet
> this commitment.
>

Goodness. If you're going to descend to this level of pedantry, at least
look at the charter:

*"6. Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported by a
client to improve interoperability."*

Clearly this compromise is entirely satisfactory in this regard.

>
> On 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
>
> As David pointed out we are not in two monolithic camps (this isn't the
> cold war here). Different companies and different individuals have
> different positions for different reasons. The fact that some people who
> might have been perceived as being in "one camp" have found a way to agree
> to a "compromise" based upon a definition that doesn't force them in their
> product to implement what they don't agree to implement does not mean that
> the fundamental reason behind the difficulty in reaching consensus on MTI
> video codecs by those whose products would be forced to implement both
> codecs has changed.
>
> It's very easy to agree to someone else to have to do something that you
> are not willing to do yourself.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maire Reavy
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:41 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
>
> On 12/5/2014 2:58 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Considering that:
> > 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
> > 2) All consensus calls on "VP8 only" and "H.264 only" have failed
> > 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps I
> > strongly support this MTI proposal.
> > Please, let's close this debate once and for all. This compromise is
> > by no means great, but it's much better than anything else we're going
> > to get otherwise (i.e. more wasted time and still no MTI).
> A big +1
>
> We have spent *so* many hours already considering, discussing, & debating
> what to do about the MTI video codec.  One could argue an "insane amount"
> of time relative to the other issues we need to resolve.  We did this
> because most of us realized that "no MTI" could be horrific for the
> standard.  We should embrace consensus around anything less than horrific,
> and most of us agree that this compromise is less than horrific (not great,
> but less than horrific).
>
> Right now I fear we're on the verge of shooting ourselves in the foot or
> head (I'm not sure which) by reopening this discussion even though we're in
> sight of the end.  I ask that the working group and the chairs put the
> proverbially safety back on the gun, declare consensus on this
> less-than-horrific proposal, and finish our work on "v1.0" of the spec.
>
> Please.
>
> -Maire
> -------------------------
> Maire Reavy
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>