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

[Victor Pascual Avila <[e-mail]>]

I support having both VP8 and H.264 as MTI -- however, believe
decision should be revisited not only for non-browsers but also
browsers.

Current text: "To promote the use of non-royalty bearing video codecs,

      participants in the RTCWEB working group, and any successor
      working groups in the IETF, intend to monitor the evolving
      licensing landscape as it pertains to the two mandatory-to-
      implement codecs.  If compelling evidence arises that one of the
      codecs is available for use on a royalty-free basis, the working
      group plans to revisit the question of which codecs are required
      for Non-Browsers, with the intention being that the royalty-free
      codec will remain mandatory to implement, and the other will
      become optional.

      These provisions apply to WebRTC Non-Browsers only.  There is no

      plan to revisit the codecs required for WebRTC Browsers."

-Victor

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Hutton, Andrew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> +1 I support the compromise plan as presented by the chair.
>
> Also agree with Maire and hope we can put a lid on this and return to useful discussion.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maire Reavy
>> Sent: 08 December 2014 21:41
>> 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



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila