Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 12/15/14, 12:24 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>> But we don't obsolete a MTI because "we have much better options":
>> we obsolete a MTI because "nobody's using it anymore".
> 
> Actually we can obsolete an MTI for any reason we please, at long as 
> there's IETF consensus to do so.

   Technically, we "can"...

   In actual practice, though, as long as someone pipes up during
Last-Call saying "These folks are still using that!", we generally
back down from declaring things "Obsolete".

>> We are all trusting, I hope, that VP9, H.265, etc. will "just be
>> used in preference" as soon as two endpoints support them.
>>
>> I don't expect to revisit the MTI selection...
> 
> I do. It's a question of when.

   Well, Peter _is_ younger than me... ;^)

   But this is a sign of a pretty serious disconnect between "old-fogies"
and "young-turks" that I'd like to call attention to:

   Young-Turks want to "do it right" and have a standard ensure the
best possible outcome; old-fogies have been-there, done-that, and
gotten-the-T-shirt -- and things never ended up the way we expected.

   Old-fogies view the world as a continuum where small changes add up
to big progress over time, but too-large changes get mired and wander
in the weeds, tiring everybody and usually leave misguided folks as
the last-men-standing.

   A wise friend once told me that the true problem with democracy is
that the results are unstable: when the electorate wants a change,
the resultant changes goes too far; and walking it back to the middle
"stable-ground" takes too long.

   This is a big part of why I "just don't get the hint" when the
majority disagrees with me -- and I prize the IETF consensus-process
whenever we can get it to work. And it's why I would have been perfectly
happy with H.261 as the Mandatory-To-Implement codec.

   We cannot be effective if we have to turn around next month and say
that VP9 must replace VP8 as MTI or H.265 must replace H.264. Market
forces _really_can_ be trusted to get the better codec(s) used in
preference to whatever we designate as MTI.

>> (That is what we want, right?)
> 
> Not as far as I can see.

   I honestly believe this "compromise" is getting majority approval
because folks are _really_ tired of the MTI discussions.

   But there _are_ young-turks who believe the MTI question is _so_
important that we have to discuss it every IETF-week until we reach
consensus-by-exhaustion.

   "Are we there yet?"

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>