Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

     So then the only question is: is there a reasonable video codec 
whose IPR has expired that we can agree on?

     My goal is to displease everyone equally. By picking a neutral 
codec, acknowledging that it displeases all parties in some way, we 
should be able to defuse most of the politics surrounding the decision.

Gili

On 17/09/2013 3:36 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> SDP Offer/Answer is used to negotiate codecs etc, so the API (JSEP) 
> already provides such negotiation mechanism.
>
> (Obviously the peers also need to negotiate with each other, but 
> whatever protocol is used for that is outside the scope.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *Lähettäjä:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> *Puolesta *cowwoc
> *Lähetetty:* 17. syyskuuta 2013 21:54
> *Vastaanottaja:* [e-mail]
> *Aihe:* Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>     Seeing as this discussion stems from licensing concerns, I like to 
> propose the following alternative:
>
>  1. Mandate a video codec whose IPR has expired. I agree that video
>     quality will degrade, which brings me to the next point.
>  2. Provide a negotiation mechanism which would allow peers to
>     "upgrade" to a superior (optionally-implemented) video codec.
>
>     This will allow us to support VP8, VP9, H264, H265 or whatever 
> other codec people like without the fear of transcoding or IPR. I 
> believe that in most cases negotiation will succeed in upgrading to a 
> superior codec. It will also encourage (as opposed to force) vendors 
> to support each other's codecs, which is the right way to go in light 
> of the political nature of this decision.
>
> Gili
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Gili
>
> On 13/09/2013 12:52 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     rtcweb mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>