Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,

In light of Harald and your responses, I'm in favor of two separate 
options for H.261 and Theora respectively. If we find a narrow those 
options down to one within the next two weeks, great, but otherwise I'd 
list them as separate options.

Also, how would the "voting" work exactly? I was imagining the following 
mechanism:

  * Each person is given the 10 or so options we'll end up with in 2 weeks.
  * The person throws out all options they don't consider acceptable
    under any circumstances
  * They sort the remaining options in order of preference
  * We tabulate the results across everyone, assigning a decreasing
    number of points to the options as the priority decreases (meaning,
    1st choice gets the most points, 2nd choice less, and so on)
  * We publish the results, how many "points" each option had and if
    there is a huge margin for the top one, it wins.

Gili

On 15/11/2013 9:22 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> On 2013-11-15 14:51, cowwoc wrote:
>> +1 with the caveat that I think option 6 should simply state:
>>
>> 6. All entities MUST support a specific IPR-expired codec (to be decided
>> at a later meeting) such as H.261 or Theora.
>>
>> The goal remains the same. I don't think people voting for this option
>> need to know up-front what the specific codec would be so long as we
>> explain that we'll try to pick the best codec possible. Correct me if
>> I'm wrong :)
> I would believe there are a lot of people in the WG that consider the
> IPR risks between Theora and H.261 significantly different. I realize
> that list each alternative code will result in a significantly longer
> list, but at the same time, I don't see how the above MUST statement
> allows the WG to conclude on video codec selection. If we would agree on
> the above, we would spend another year discussing our IPR beliefs around
> various codecs. From that perspective I do think there is better to have
> the individuals in the WG form their own opinions regarding an explicit
> proposal.
>
> At the same time, I would recommend that the people who believe in the
> above option, coming to an agreement now, before the process starts, on
> which codec alternative they want to support. This is after all also a
> question of how to best trade IPR risk vs capability and quality per
> bit. Thus improving that options chance.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>