[rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 September 2013 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E7B11E8171 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FgO3ZyURkoX8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD37821F9D92 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u16so3014697iet.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=vnRCr41xZnTxYFhqpw5V3JlOKYl1EKbynM1hpsWm874=; b=llnFPXTxSgQbs0rJ0FjD4cLvwqtXlEhUtRmAwHxitIRwSJBwZeqIARH0gpFKGiXIHC QJTLqM9kc2iwbsehZwAryZEYOMsUeDaShQltemrX8pRh77FfLjm2ULsmMmH/ODfSGDGo /NBYE3wWb/UTqoMhMqL2123qUwOUazNqvaJYNIhOPFa0U4OfKDl9AXyo6+mryqrjXAN4 pxJK2Q0TnfQu6i6AstD2rzTOUuW9TaXbDLrL9oHK1F452KNd+8v2fA+oAVS3iY5dHmTU wZqI7m8MciUHpt5FPciw95S6oNWfGaHP5hjW1HhijLG59u12PkTOo/3+6b2D50xjiq06 8NlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.19.198 with SMTP id ql6mr1976513icb.22.1379091144364; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAvdtq_gufKmDNCNCL+kKcxyi0MGUoVHetd9_DzbEdEnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec519694bc5e53004e646adb0"
Subject: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:52:28 -0000

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