Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

1. Please explain why this decision is an IETF decision and not a W3C 
decision, given that it is a choice about what to mandate in the 
presentation layer as codec, NOT what to mandate for the on-the-wire 
transport format (which has already been selected as DTLS-SRTP with an 
appropriate IETF payload based on the application)

2. Should I expect "room-packing" for this "show of hands" (which I 
don't believe is the typical "hum" process for the IETF, either) as 
happened during the SDES discussion last time, and therefore need to 
bring as many people who've not participated in RTCWEB previously but 
who want my codec to succeed as I can afford to fly to Vancouver?

Matthew Kaufman

On 9/13/2013 9:52 AM, 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 list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb