Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

What is the difference between the proposed questions and the ones that were
asked in Orlando, we had documents and presentations and could not reach a
decision in Orlando. 

If nothing changed we can start with the proposal to use alternative
decision process.

Roni

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Ted Hardie
Sent: 13 September, 2013 7:52 PM
To: [e-mail]; Cullen Jennings; Magnus Westerlund
Subject: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

 

WG,

The chairs have created a plan for how to perform the Video Codec
selection in our WG. The chairs are asking for review of our plan on
how to undertake the mandatory-to-implement video codec selection.
We'd much prefer to have comments on the mechanics before they begin,
so please review now.  Proponents of a particular proposal should
note both the actions required and the timelines proposed.

The main goal of this plan is to hold a consensus call on which of
the proposed alternatives we as a WG should select at one of the WG
sessions in Vancouver. Such a consensus call will of course be
verified on the mailing list for anyone who can't participate. The
chairs will recuse themselves from judging this particular
consensus.

In the WG session each codec proposal will be allowed an equal amount
of time to highlight the arguments for their proposal. After that a
there will be a slot for discussion and clarifying questions.

To enable the WG participants to get answers to any questions, the
proposals in draft form and any supporting material MUST be made
available by 6th of October. This is to ensure that the WG
participants can verify or object to any claims or statements in
the proposal material prior to the WG session. We chairs would really
not like to see the proponents bring up new arguments at their
presentation. Also the WG participants are expected to raise any
arguments on the list ahead of time to enable the proponents to
respond to such arguments.

The proposed consensus questions will be of the following form:

1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

You may indicate support on both questions and we encourage you to do
so if you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one
over the other.

Additional proposals than the previous ones are welcome, but must be
submitted as draft and their proponents must notify the chairs no later
than the 6th of October that they also have a candidate proposal.

In case the WG fails to reach consensus we chairs propose that we use
the alternative decision process as discussed in RFC3929. The method
and its usage will be discussed on the list should the WG not
establish consensus on a proposal for mandatory to implement video codec.

regards,

Magnus,  Cullen, and Ted