[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) 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 []) (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-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
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."





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:

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 Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

rtcweb mailing list