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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Mary,
>
>     I understand. So you're saying that the WG believes that this topic
> has been discussed to death and therefore would like to call it to a vote
> without (or with a shorter) discussion, is that correct?
>
> Gili
>
>
Please remember that we don't vote; we're trying to come to (at least
rough) consensus.  That's a harder process than voting, and it can take
more time.  A key part of it is ensuring that each of those with
substantive technical points to make is certain that they have been heard.
If the H.264 and VP8 proponents do not choose to use the full time for
their presentations or the working group participants the time for
questions, we will, of course, retrieve whatever time remains for other
discussions.  The more that substantive discussions happens now, on the
list, the more likely it is that we retrieve time.  If all the proponents
of each proposal and all the potential questioners are satisfied by the
discussion on the list, we can retrieve nearly all of it.

If the working group would like the chairs to propose other topics for any
remainder, I am sure we can do so; we'd also be happy for proposals from
the WG.

regards,

Ted Hardie


>
> On 14/10/2013 2:26 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> Gili,
>
>  The concern is around 2 hours on the agenda at the upcoming f2f meeting:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09037.html
>
>  We already spent around hours on this topic at a previous f2f IETF.
>  Here's the multi-media recording for your enjoyment:
> http://ietf86.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#RTCWEB_III
>
>  BTW, Meetecho is a great way for remote folks to follow the f2f IETF
> meetings.
>
>
>  Regards,
> Mary.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> [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
>
>