Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[Leon Geyser <[e-mail]>]

Anyone willing to create a draft for H.261?


On 18 September 2013 02:13, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Ted,
>>
>>     Seeing as this discussion stems from licensing concerns, I like to
>> propose the following alternative:
>>
>>    1. Mandate a video codec whose IPR has expired. I agree that video
>>    quality will degrade, which brings me to the next point.
>>    2. Provide a negotiation mechanism which would allow peers to
>>    "upgrade" to a superior (optionally-implemented) video codec.
>>
>> Negotiation has always been part of the design. The sole question is which
> codec is mandatory to implement, not which is the sole codec to be
> mandated.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>     This will allow us to support VP8, VP9, H264, H265 or whatever other
>> codec people like without the fear of transcoding or IPR. I believe that in
>> most cases negotiation will succeed in upgrading to a superior codec. It
>> will also encourage (as opposed to force) vendors to support each other's
>> codecs, which is the right way to go in light of the political nature of
>> this decision.
>>
>> Gili
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Gili
>>
>>
>> On 13/09/2013 12:52 PM, 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 [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>