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

Adam Roach <> Sat, 06 December 2014 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABD41A026A for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:30:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VlbuwDvwf5MQ for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4A171A0172 for <>; Sat, 6 Dec 2014 13:30:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB6LU3aQ070190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:30:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 15:30:02 -0600
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:30:08 -0000

On 12/5/14 17:58, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 17:50 , Adam Roach <> wrote:
>> On 12/5/14 15:26, David Singer wrote:
>>>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:58 , Jean-Marc Valin <> wrote:
>>>> 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
>>> if you could speak only for yourself, and not others, that might be better.  You’re claiming support by other people here.
>> If I read Jean-Marc's statement correctly, it's not speaking on behalf of other people; it's using what they have already said, on the record [1], as a valid part of his rationale.
>> I'd like to reinforce this sentiment. I support this proposal not because I think it is the best solution, but because it is the first MTI video codec proposal that the actual implementors in this technology space have even remotely agreed on since the discussion began. I support this proposal primarily because it is the only solution we have yet seen that has a credible chance of succeeding.
> OK, we are potential implementor, and so are Blackberry, and we don’t agree.

That's been taken into account. As Keith so helpfully pointed out, what 
was reached in the room was *rough* consensus, and you've made it 
abundantly clear that you're part of the rough.

As *you* pointed out in the other active video-related thread, one 
generally "wouldn’t be here if [one] hadn’t chosen to implement," and it 
was sufficiently clear that people who "were here" in Hawaii thought 
that pursuing this plan was better than not. Lest you think I'm putting 
words in anyone's mouth when I say that, I cite the chairs' declaration 
on the topic rather than claiming my subjective evaluation of the room's 
sense (which would involve several more adjectives than my rather 
subdued statement here).

Keep in mind that this is all being said in the context of making a 
point about why I support this course of action (because I think it has 
a good chance of success), so don't read more than that into it.

> You seem to hypothesize two camps only and that this has support of both.

I'm actually not claiming that it's as simple as two camps; however, I 
think it's pretty fair to say that the participants have historically 
held positions that could be broadly characterized as "pro-VP8" and 
"pro-H.264." My claim is that a non-trivial number of people who have 
historically supported one of those positions to the exclusion of the 
other have expressed a willingness to go along with this plan.

> You are therefore trying to claim a state of consensus which does not exist.  There was pushback both in the room and on the list.

Rough consensus is not the lack of push-back. The IETF would specify 
approximately nothing if all decisions required unanimity.

In terms of the rough accord I'm citing as part of my rationale, I'm far 
more inclined to consider the working group chairs' declaration about 
the sense of the room to be a valid indicator of the positions of 
interested parties than I would yours or even my own.