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

"Krasimir D. Kolarov" <kolarov@apple.com> Fri, 05 December 2014 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <kolarov@apple.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7E01AD60A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:22:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jClyMSxqWZRM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in5.apple.com (mail-out5.apple.com [17.151.62.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D4741AD5DD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:22:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1417807348; x=2281720948; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CwUS2fofLreS6X1dBTEno08jg+p+1L8Jgb3UmrJBMMQ=; b=sUsrc/boPbtTTjDR27+NCc1a9sRBTGA0wCFEI0m7ZxDkW7S7jJ8zxrYsqzKixZu7 Fg2ZDaicmdD3vA/m316H6rsuWz2emEk2EgPblLzJkKSE7YeJufVWmTzz18WQbg9t e9MgL/7JvoFu86M5zoaRdBmFNZqe/K5ypACtHcaWadxtI9oGyONv5bGVlwtX47mh YrWbfY46ZJEBm5jm7ZNVvmfNQY9aZmATn7k6W4GH5RsaI0hX9AuV/Ani4ZySUyNe qPczdBITYKnMAjoaf0T7D6TCtcmEewZPAUdmTh6gN5yTQQm3T/m3fWvQMpg47pN+ 9lF5jt8bMjpFYk904wDRjQ==;
Received: from relay5.apple.com (relay5.apple.com [17.128.113.88]) by mail-in5.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 3E.1D.06819.4F502845; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e13-f79656d000001aa3-ad-548205f4a980
Received: from aniseed.apple.com (aniseed.apple.com [17.128.115.23]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay5.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id FE.50.06123.6F502845; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from da0703a-dhcp60.apple.com (da0703a-dhcp60.apple.com [17.197.35.188]) by aniseed.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NG40093RJ5F8P70@aniseed.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:22:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: "Krasimir D. Kolarov" <kolarov@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:22:28 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <C5A55329-4A5F-4507-8D9E-CA6AA99C6C27@apple.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com>
To: Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYofuFtSnEYO4BUYu1/9rZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVMfvCLuaCTTIViyYcYG5g7BDvYuTgkBAwkbjdl9fFyAlkiklc uLeerYuRi0NIYC+jxKqHrawQCROJ13uXMEIk+pkk5nz9xgzhrGWS6F11jBFkkrCArcTW60Eg DbwCehJNTx4zgYSZgez7F7VAwmwC+hJPX65nAbE5BWwkbnfNYgaxWQRUJc7NeQm2i1lAWOL7 43ssELa2xJN3F1ghRtpIPJ49hw3EFhKwlvi1dQWYLSKgJNGwcwcLxJ2yEv8unmEHOU1C4C2r xJPZrWwTGIVnITlpFsJJs5CsWMDIvIpRKDcxM0c3M89UL7GgICdVLzk/dxMjKISn2wnvYDy9 yuoQowAHoxIP7wqJxhAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4rzveIFCAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4 OKUaGDl+369y2PLjpFfDmzJlv6qzrQt2zxJ8rKqRPrFqp4OP9u0Zn9v+sBocm3R4j/H98y+j Dtc3dPOVWnof8q+zqc7iu8B9kK8iW2xdgXSlbbNoeOJ1hxllnlGib17emfFCbYXpOaFrmdUv M4sT4qfrFRtNjlx6nGG7xxrb8L5Hy7tFVT/w6Fb4KrEUZyQaajEXFScCAE2eGn5CAgAA
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAsrvuNtSnEoOcch8Xaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKmH1hF3PBJpmKRRMOMDcwdoh3MXJySAiYSLzeu4QRwhaTuHBv PVsXIxeHkEA/k8Scr9+YIZy1TBK9q44BVXFwCAvYSmy9HgTSwCugJ9H05DETSJgZyL5/UQsk zCagL/H05XoWEJtTwEbidtcsZhCbRUBV4tycl6wgNrOAsMT3x/dYIGxtiSfvLrBCjLSReDx7 DhuILSRgLfFr6wowW0RASaJh5w4WiDtlJf5dPMM+gVFgFpIrZiFcMQvJ1AWMzKsYBYpScxIr TfUSCwpyUvWS83M3MYKDrjBiB+P/ZVaHGAU4GJV4eFdINIYIsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuFNng0U 4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzlvyDiglkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg9JVm1Uvr2Zu5 uI1L6cLixlW5s2PF/T+Gblv81DfH9/9/Bm6JIy35t7V/r5de4y7WsFip3rrl1MytNYHxe+60 h7FfYOtdZWm/mGPG7crdtjOdEq9eqL3adD1CMT9GvnBRVPh9RfcKZzNOa78iti79a4sbNjJv W79f6a3pvaeT56wWl/39PrVciaU4I9FQi7moOBEACJN9CDYCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/YJUthEwffxqxNCdtuZOFZ7qbHGo
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:22:35 -0000

To re-iterate what I said at the mike during the meeting, at this point we can not support this draft, due to the existence of “unwilling to license" declaration on a technology required for compliance. The discussion on point 1 below during the meeting and on the list has not changed that situation.

Krasimir


> On Dec 5, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
> 
> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
> 
> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR, Time, and Trigger:
> 
> 1) IPR:
> 
> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser implementations.
> 
> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8: draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
> 
> 2) Time:
> 
> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
> 
> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the opportunity to attend in person.
> 
> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is not required to be part of the process.
> 
> 2.2) Time to consider text:
> 
> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
> 
> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.  All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss the proposal.
> 
> 3) Trigger:
> 
> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
> 
> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
> 
> 
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
> 
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do by December 19th.
> 
> Cheers,
> spt (as chair)
> 
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb