Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

We have heard both voices.  The two camps are approximately of the same
strength.  Even when looking at browser market share, neither camp is an
overwhelming "winner".  Which is why I suggested in Vancouver that it may be
time to follow the WhatWG and W3C's lead and leave the mandatory video codec
selection to the browser vendors, not to a standards community that, as this
discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with commercial
realities.  Leaving it to the browser vendors knowing that, at least
initially, we may have interop problems.

[RS> ] I suggest that this is not a can you can kick down the road
indefinitely. At some point we will have to make a decision since the
ultimate goal is a globally interoperable service.  

I said in Vancouver that it is unacceptable to allow the commercial
considerations of an industry operating under one business model (for
example open source), to block standards development going in a certain
direction, if there are others operating under another business model (close
source and $$$ for licensing) and they want a different direction.
I will continue to say so.  And will object quite noisily if such an
argument would be decisive in the IETF's decision making process, one way or
another.

>
>> H 264 since it is nearly universally deployed.
>
>You've lost me here.  I can't use it.  Oh sure, I have the code-- I'm 
>just not allowed to do anything with it, and MPEG-LA won't sell me a 
>license because I don't track downstream.

So start tracking downstream.  Your business model does not allow for it?
Change it!  

>
>Monty
>Xiph.Org
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb