Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:01 UTC
Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 25A711AE2FE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ZuGiHFEjW_AL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D4E1AE2FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id eh20so257018lab.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5vLz7c/z5ZvhKb8WlZqsZZJyxVIgrE9Vtlyz8qLhLbA=; b=CLfDYAiFrVTFlz+QUWfzitKIp7UWYAxklAYQEs3yCJkqnIpUMs5VJLgQktrNWHkmf2 xKioKX44ea09WjMHwxo5RZrXsZf8wlkDYqiMZK6NmiHuELbGwJAq5VkpsuyRwDxBRDYO /oJWUAvneItWJcx6U8jND6usM2e2QZKxUwAju4tQodoNAu3JsU2iB8tJGPypC18O+DDq fvpSPpb1od7Ho/w4WwUIaugSZiVXVu0o1anaOdvCydEIOKxgLc+iv7zHdZwhxO/QGtWT M0rejF4Txtw7Y+nhUFVCGoNE/XOhXM8t4yn7HA3Q2dIz3427XHmDVZOKXJl1I5n5ndGX F5jw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.200.170 with SMTP id jt10mr6176638lbc.10.1385067700243; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <528E7265.7010303@googlemail.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E7265.7010303@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:01:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiTqK91TcHqxvb-AK8en4mP5YVcmpyqxAozVzHNgGYHa_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c265b843514504ebb63499"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:01:52 -0000
>>This is IMO a very nice summary of issues and options. >> >>Maik +1 On 21 November 2013 22:51, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> wrote: > This is IMO a very nice summary of issues and options. > > Maik > > Am 21.11.2013 21:41, schrieb Ron: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13:11AM -0800, Adam Roach wrote: >> >>> On 11/21/13 10:56, Justin Uberti wrote: >>> >>>> Following an IETF meeting on Jabber doesn't count as participating? >>>> >>>> The "big guy vs little guy" narrative continues... >>>> >>> >>> I think that's a bit specious. If someone is following the issue at >>> such a distance that they haven't expressed an opinion on the >>> mailing list, I can't see how taking a vote from them counts as >>> anything other than simple, old-fashioned ballot stuffing. >>> >>> I'll take it one step further. I find the prospect that we're >>> allowing blue sheets to stand in for participation to be highly >>> questionable: letting the tourists vote is weighting the opinion of >>> demonstrably uninvolved (or less-involved) parties at the same level >>> as those who have actually been working on the topic. I do not think >>> that a blue-sheet sign in without any on-list participation should >>> be sufficient to participate in the kind of process the chairs are >>> proposing. >>> >>> Or perhaps I'm missing something. >>> >> >> I'd assumed that Justin was referring to the fact that people were >> objecting to jabber participants but not the blue sheet tourists >> who packed the room for the session with a hum. >> >> So I'm glad you've made that (IMO obvious and important) extra detail >> quite specific. >> >> >> But that said, I think I'm firmly with Peter Saint-Andre here. >> Taking this straight to (another) vote seems like a questionable >> choice, with a very high chance of an even more questionable and >> protested outcome (and precedent). [1] >> >> >> My understanding of the current situation is: >> >> - We established consensus long ago that MTI codecs are a very >> important part of this specification. >> >> - We've had 2 seriously proposed codecs prior to the last meeting. >> >> - We have people expressing objections to both of them, that the >> chairs consider sufficient to declare there is no workable >> consensus for either at present. >> >> - The sustainable objections to both all boil down to people claiming >> there are insurmountable IPR difficulties. Whether that be mythical >> risk, or clear impossibilities of obtaining a licence. >> >> - We've now had people resign themselves to the fact that this is the >> blocking issue for consensus that needs to be resolved, and propose >> solutions that directly address that issue, through the use of a >> codec that is broadly agreed does not have this problem. >> >> >> So to me the obvious next step would be to probe for consensus about >> the codec options that _do_ remain on the table - and see if anybody >> has an actually sustainable objection that would prevent achieving a >> rough consensus that the concerns surrounding our original preferred >> choices are indeed satisfied by taking this path. >> >> The strong objections that people have had to H.264 and VP8 aren't >> going to go away, however a vote might decide - so unless those people >> are going to retract their objections now (or the chairs are going to >> declare them vexatious and irrelevant), then 'voting' for either of >> those as MTI seems utterly pointless. >> >> By my understanding we so far have 2 possible candidates for a MTI >> codec that may satisfy the IPR and licencing concerns that have >> blocked us from a decision to date: >> >> - H.261, for which everyone seems to agree the IPR is exhausted. >> >> - MPEG1, which Stephan raised some oblique concerns about, that >> might still prove unfounded with a little more investigation. >> >> Theora I'm assuming will attract the same FUD that it did with W3C >> (since people have already quoted the farce that occurred there) >> and that VP8 has attracted. All the other H.xxx codecs are still >> within the lifetime of live patents. So if we can rule out H.264 >> and VP8, then we can immediately rule these out too without going >> through the motions of repeating all the same arguments again, >> with a just some search and replace for the codec names. >> >> >> So wouldn't a better first step be to: >> >> - See if MPEG1 can actually be ruled out with plausible indications >> of real remaining IPR trouble. >> >> - If it is, we only have one codec left for people to try to raise >> objections about that might be sustained. >> >> - If it isn't, we really still only have one codec left for people >> to raise objections about, since there's obvious agreement that >> it would be superior to H.261 in every other way. >> >> >> Given the agreement we've previously seen on what a MTI codec is >> supposed to achieve, I'm having a hard time seeing how consensus >> couldn't be established for at the worst H.261. We'll all agree >> that it sucks -- but I'm yet to see any reasonable objection about >> why it _can't_ satisfy the requirements for being the MTI fallback, >> in the absence of working agreement for a better alternative. >> >> So why don't we just skip straight to seeking consensus on this? >> >> Instead of having a vote stacked with multiple options that will remain >> just as unacceptable as they are today, for all the same reasons, where >> people won't have to actually _justify_ why they consider some option >> or another to be unacceptable. >> >> Ron >> >> >> [1] - though I'm not at all questioning the good faith of the chairs >> in trying to find an adequate way to resolve this (or envious >> of their predicament here). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ashish V. Thapliyal
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Paul Giralt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video co… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)