IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Wed, 11 December 2013 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9B21AE36A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFoGgMtx19-7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0243.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9172A1AE286 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2PR03CA019.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.66.27) by BL2PR03MB180.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.837.10; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:55:02 +0000
Received: from BY2FFO11FD033.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c0c::152) by BL2PR03CA019.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:c1b::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.837.10 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:55:02 +0000
Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD033.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.825.6 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:55:01 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.185]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:53:47 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHO9fr5qz1uJYuIK0aKoZUEB69bW5pOnlBw
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:53:46 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48441928E45@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48441927F3A@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A6D092.3090701@ericsson.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484419289C7@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48441928A32@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A79BCF.2090404@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <52A79BCF.2090404@bbs.darktech.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(51704005)(189002)(199002)(76786001)(31966008)(19580405001)(83322001)(53806001)(81342001)(77096001)(69226001)(74662001)(47446002)(74502001)(44976005)(79102001)(46102001)(76482001)(74876001)(51856001)(47736001)(77982001)(81542001)(74706001)(54316002)(46406003)(54356001)(19580395003)(59766001)(50986001)(49866001)(56776001)(4396001)(87936001)(23726002)(66066001)(81816001)(87266001)(50466002)(90146001)(2656002)(65816001)(74366001)(33656001)(561944002)(20776003)(56816005)(80022001)(76796001)(85806002)(85306002)(80976001)(47976001)(63696002)(85852003)(83072002)(47776003)(6806004)(55846006)(81686001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB180; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0057EE387C
X-OriginatorOrg: skype.net
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:55:09 -0000

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of cowwoc
> Matthew,
> 
> Part of the difficulty of reaching consensus is knowing what options people
> consider acceptable. I don't think that this straw poll is about counting which
> option gets more support. Rather, it's a way for us to narrow the list down to
> (say) 3 options and bring *those* to a follow-up consensus call. We can't
> proceed to a consensus call with 16 options.
> 
> Do you have an alternative proposal for reaching consensus on this matter?

Sure. Drop this entirely, go finish the other work, and then see if the situation has changed. Given how long it will likely take to finish the items that require cooperation with MMUSIC (as just one example), it is possible that one of these codec choices will have a change in its IPR status (e.g., MPEG standardization, royalty-free licensing) or that a new codec that is not currently proposed will become a viable or even preferred choice.

We've certainly spent enough time so far to know that simple consensus on the current choices at the current time isn't going to happen... and that it isn't happening for reasons that are *not* technical in nature, and so not resolvable by the stakeholders in the room. (As an example, my employer is not represented in the working group by any of its legal and corporate affairs staff)

> Or are you simply advocating we declare "No MTI"?

If the situation is unchanged at that time, I believe that "No MTI" is the only possible outcome. Plus, given the current IPR situation, that's exactly how the browser vendors will act anyway... and we are chartered to care primarily about the browser use cases. (Whether or not you think that's appropriate, that's how it is). But anything could happen between now and finishing the other work... if only we could get back to doing it.

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email