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

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]>]

I am not supporting the proposal.

The licensing around H264 is a mess, blocking safe usage in open source
software (which had really big impact in the evolution of open web &
internet) that cannot control its distribution. Moreover, it is imposing
unnecessary costs, or in other words, even worse, a revenue to a
particular group of interests, and exposing new players to unknown
risks. These are serious impediments for innovation and not something I
would expect from an open specification from IETF.

On some of the bits of the proposal: mandating that the two codecs stay
mandatory is odd and somehow overruling IETF system where a new RFC can
obsolete a new RFC. Different requirements for different entities will
create a mess of terminologies (e.g., how an app implementing JS API and
one codec is going to be presented: a *web browser* but not a *webrtc
browser*, just a *webrtc device*).

Ending up now with an bad solution for present and the future, just to
close the door on this topic, is not appropriate for how open Internet
communications are supposed to evolve. Better let time to come with a
better solution and applications negotiate what they like meanwhile
(even with no MTI video codec so far, there are successful webrtc services).

Daniel

Ps. I reiterate my opinions on this thread, because I expressed them on
other threads of recent discussions, which may count or not.

On 09/12/14 21:31, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Setting aside my reservations about the dual-MTI requirement for
> browsers, I also oppose the other elements of the proposal. 
>
> Mandating that applications support both codecs makes no sense - they
> should only be required to support one of them (their choice).   If
> this change were made the trigger clause would serve no purpose, other
> than to keep this discussion going ad-infinitum.  So I oppose that as
> well. 
>
> Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC
> compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so
> wrong-headed that I am at a loss for words.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Sean,
>
>     We can not support this draft at this time.
>
>     As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we
>     can not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our
>     developer community.
>
>     According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app
>     that is built using our tools. Codec selection should be their
>     choice and not be forced upon them. This seems to be a rather
>     unreasonable expectation.
>
>
>     **Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | **Hookflash
>     <http://hookflash.com/>** | 1 (855)* *Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>     <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> **
>     ********
>
>     On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         All,
>
>         At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively
>         discussion about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec
>         compromise."  The compromise text that was discussed appears
>         in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight editorial variation
>         of the text proposed at [2]).
>
>         This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
>         In the room, I heard the following objections and responses
>         (and I’m paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of
>         categorizing as IPR, Time, and Trigger:
>
>         1) IPR:
>
>         Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict
>         what a particular organization feels comfortable with
>         including in their browser implementations.
>
>         Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There
>         is even a draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
>         draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was
>         still that adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>
>         2) Time:
>
>         2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
>         Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at
>         this meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide
>         some the opportunity to attend in person.
>
>         Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion
>         would be revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal
>         for the WG included this topic [1], and the topic was never
>         removed by the chairs.    More importantly, all decisions are
>         confirmed on list; in person attendance is not required to be
>         part of the process.
>
>         2.2) Time to consider text:
>
>         Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
>         Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and
>         H.264 was among the options in the straw poll conducted more
>         than six months ago.  All decisions are confirmed on list so
>         there will be ample time to discuss the proposal.
>
>         3) Trigger:
>
>         Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong
>         because it’s promising that the future IETF will update this
>         specification.
>
>         Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the
>         current proposal can be changed through the consensus process
>         at any other time.
>
>
>         After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the
>         hums, and typing the hum questions on the screen, there was
>         rough consensus in the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed
>         text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In keeping with IETF
>         process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
>
>         If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise
>         please do by December 19th.
>
>         Cheers,
>         spt (as chair)
>
>         [0]
>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
>         [1]
>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
>         [2]
>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
>         [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
>         [4]
>         http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda