Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B89C11E816F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WlDYdmqBocR5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BCD11E81FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:44:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2074; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383673476; x=1384883076; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=C/JOhyYBYpY19BLbLosbXOTf4zHvwUblYO1/EXkbhxo=; b=Csqe0Cm6TGzdhugtLwdggcI0v+LKYoQPLyaVJYViZrecXHn2rYlLcWJH oC0jYWillM4IXRpzVgte5an0SYELGj7LfqiGSEJKEH/pdeKjEdBtIKK52 cTTeAnH62HUVEY/XDwPBYT8eNIS+wtrDeS2qHN1a/rOvS2L+aBHzH/fkG w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEGAD0teVKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U75tS4EsFm0HgiUBAQEDAQEBATc0CwULAgEIGB4QIQYLJQIEDgUUh1sDCQYNtHUNiWcEjGeCPzMHgyCBDwOWH4FrjFKFN4Mmgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,640,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="278002950"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 17:44:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA5HiTWF020766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:44:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.229]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:44:28 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
Thread-Index: AQHO2kxFGh+JzgPRUEOKvqjNfmPjepoXThOA
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com>
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.120.246]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B9788EC8E663A740A8D1EDC162A489A3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:45:10 -0000

Right now there is no proposal on the table for the MTI to be both VP8 and H.264 and the deadline was back in October so it's not a topic the chairs feel ready to discuss in the thursday meeting. 

I will note that in the past when this idea was discussed, the people who were concerned about IPR for either codec pointed out that this could only increased, not decreased, the IPR concerns. 

The chairs are more concerned about neither choice being acceptable. If we found out that both are acceptable, that will be a good situation and we will find a reasonable way to proceed from there that is acceptable to the WG. Alternative process is the last resort. From a chair point of view, it really better if people actually honestly answer the question in a consensus call instead gaming the system. 

Cullen - Just one of the chairs and I hope my co-chairs add more but they are both in meetings right now


On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
 wrote:

> This is an important point the chairs must clarify. If there is strong
> support for both questions, will the chair interpret that as support for 2
> MTIs, or declare no consensus, forcing us into alternative processes? I
> support both as MTI. But if raising my hand twice increases the likelihood
> of an alternative process, I will only support one (despite objecting to
> being forced to support only one).
> 
> Mo
> 
> 
> On 11/5/13, 9:46 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5 November 2013 06:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
>> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?
> 
> 
> If I were to pretend that I am a process wonk, I might say something
> like: if the objections to both questions are weak AND if the
> objectors are unable to find reasons that pass muster.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>