[rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Sat, 23 November 2013 01:01 UTC
Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 A56CA1AE09E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 M7XVCvH5CLHN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us1.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570EA1AE058 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.28.193]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EACD81908001; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:01:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1385168492; bh=wzDaHyh0iVv6kqhAaVVOVcRo+RoHgZ+kg/obFSzrrSU=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=AN5hqLPkErCwxAcBGm20/Mtca3jFtm7VbBnKy/zPM64UC/02o4SY5K9yTiAod3dYC EmI9YZDFBEbOFKNsZ5CZLPSuxjlkz1kExe/FyLy5lBb1C2MfD+erAxYbjDIcTCuaZt 13phmo+QU/mtY94U++8FhoXHRqX0MYq2z+crkZ8Y=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Emil Ivov' <emcho@jitsi.org>, "'Peter St Andre, (stpeter)'" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5057.30408@stpeter.im> <CAPvvaaLXAbFabnFjEEg7yvdbdA9yZ=M7j3pZDqpNek-wuER34A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPvvaaLXAbFabnFjEEg7yvdbdA9yZ=M7j3pZDqpNek-wuER34A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:31:20 +0530
Message-ID: <01c101cee7e7$88f12610$9ad37230$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C2_01CEE815.A2A96210"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7m/6doUpl81HLyRgarcXZ/lBHz1QA2+3eg
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.528FFE6C.0093, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Rules: SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.138
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: 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: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:01:44 -0000
I agree with Emil & Peter that voting will not help to achieve Video codec MTI in the industry. Let us assume that codec x is selected as per the election result. Why should the opposite camp browser vendor or WebRTC gateway/conference vendor *MUST* implement the specified codec x for the sake IETF compliance? As the multiple codec alternative (candidate) exists and kind of implicit coalition[1] allowed by IRV election mechanism, it is possible for less than 50% folks supported codec alternative as a first preference will be selected as point in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting first example. How this mechanism helps to achieve the better interop in the internet which is our ultimate aim? I'm worried that this election may results in situation of "the operation was a success but the patient died." Thanks Partha Note 1: Implicit coalition - 2nd preference will become the voters choice after the 1st preference is eliminated From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Emil Ivov Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:51 AM To: Peter St Andre, (stpeter) Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process The IETF does not vote! This is not a democracy! We reach consensus based on technical arguments or we declare lack thereof. The fact that I could afford a plane ticket to this meeting, had the time to post on that mailing list or sent a +1 message on an XMPP MUC does not make me more or less qualified to cast a vote on this topic than anyone else. The criteria that is being suggested for picking a voter's base here is so desperately arbitrary that it makes a coin flip pale in comparison. It also shows how ill suited the IETF is for such things. In other words, +1 to what Peter said and let's stick to what we actually can do. --sent from my mobile On 21 Nov 2013 19:26, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/21/13 9:51 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > The method we propose is based on Instant-runoff voting, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting, with the > understanding that the choice will be the winner according to the > Instant-runoff voting process. I have the greatest respect for the chairs, but this is an engraved invitation for people to appeal whatever decision might be reached. More fundamentally: Voting? At the IETF?? Really?!? I sincerely hope we can figure out a better process... Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSjlBXAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pxmoP/2cCm8UEteJlhNkpV+kTrgYc epj1s0LHlQYS/XBWvTpa6d/DeBS0N/mWUAHg+QDj1J5kXiCol3PVpZB7yp2YP4p+ OcsF/y4KTJCZz+Qs/SBj6o68eX4Cuk68FZ5nrSK6/jSuRFLH6LYTbXW7jvF/Y4pX ER5kUg14c+s+NFo575ru3PjYJy2NoSUHVJfB/pLtmlFSH+WKZXw7RFR+Sivlyw3p RSJ2fsGldRRa/5aLFajDXxVmViwOtDbuoIFpKKfSSw76a3Q4IbPPX+gezQi7p0ky cJCED5/U6IR4wtyWxsfQTV7XDvebYtWTXk2smzKPmQCdRnUiHmT5fmtR6bxDVbSu h7xrLCTJeW8qx4IN9zvXCg6QUKUzPdtJuhRF/HouCiZQs9v+d0jmSaR/ZUiZ0Ho9 1uXHkiUezkksDKjxB9hsJDmMj24BMzu8TmkndZd3Q4lSg0PI+R1ALd6MgXupBCif L8lwYm+JG4cT548O1AfFrBmYcqKnNuTilAA7ZwwJtk6eLcpzpwbLFvRq0LVhsmJC dDiNKGSFmgj8wTgT7Z3SQ+km++gecDILGvnJU5hXo6RmnErcjzkis7YMootreSUi qCA1fJm7s1TZMn18X79XzHRF6run0C9UaYZORSPwlpmTzAdjRKN5WimstXO2yIQJ IZFFqvSNutklVl36Limg =G59C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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)