Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

["Chenxin (Xin)" <[e-mail]>]

+1 for the other discussion has been influenced. I remembered there were some draft comments in the mailing list after IETF88. But I could not find them now, and I remember there is no reply on these valuable comments. 

First, let's finish the Poll to give the WG and the chairs a reference to stop this chaos . There are too few feedbacks by now comparing to the hot discussion before.....

Second, At least, we could move the codec discussion to a separate mailing list like PNTAW. I need say sorry to Harald about it. I objected his same suggestion before because I believe we could get a result in plan. But now I find he was so wise. 

Third, I still hope there will be more discussions on the other draft and direction. Otherwise the milestone will be far far... from us. 

Best Regards,
     Xin 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Matthew
>Kaufman (SKYPE)
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:54 PM
>To: cowwoc; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec
>Alternatives
>
>From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of cowwoc
>> Matthew,
>>
>> Part of the difficulty of reaching consensus is knowing what options people
>> consider acceptable. I don't think that this straw poll is about counting which
>> option gets more support. Rather, it's a way for us to narrow the list down to
>> (say) 3 options and bring *those* to a follow-up consensus call. We can't
>> proceed to a consensus call with 16 options.
>>
>> Do you have an alternative proposal for reaching consensus on this matter?
>
>Sure. Drop this entirely, go finish the other work, and then see if the situation
>has changed. Given how long it will likely take to finish the items that require
>cooperation with MMUSIC (as just one example), it is possible that one of these
>codec choices will have a change in its IPR status (e.g., MPEG standardization,
>royalty-free licensing) or that a new codec that is not currently proposed will
>become a viable or even preferred choice.
>
>We've certainly spent enough time so far to know that simple consensus on the
>current choices at the current time isn't going to happen... and that it isn't
>happening for reasons that are *not* technical in nature, and so not resolvable
>by the stakeholders in the room. (As an example, my employer is not
>represented in the working group by any of its legal and corporate affairs staff)
>
>> Or are you simply advocating we declare "No MTI"?
>
>If the situation is unchanged at that time, I believe that "No MTI" is the only
>possible outcome. Plus, given the current IPR situation, that's exactly how the
>browser vendors will act anyway... and we are chartered to care primarily about
>the browser use cases. (Whether or not you think that's appropriate, that's how
>it is). But anything could happen between now and finishing the other work... if
>only we could get back to doing it.
>
>Matthew Kaufman
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb