Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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.
>
> Negotiation has always been part of the design. The sole question is which
codec is mandatory to implement, not which is the sole codec to be mandated.

-Ekr


    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 [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>