Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 CD06A1A0366 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:04:00 -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 TH01hXwS9ByF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:03:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76CB1A0162 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:03:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a1so2370934wgh.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:03:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kQ9WPPViFuW58tvupJMLJzH4IPHQGuCtBMdWhlFcZ2U=; b=Y6n5G1or0mgyvbcjnoxv/gm6XQhtVW031kqMK25SIizwMqBAEtslTJ99JceS/XCB5+ fhmVTgXP9kxgu8gnI+8hUcCGWXxvvfc6yXdX92t19iJ5YRlYpWQZUayb+v1XdboOn0hK hmpRrcQAeVhG0xsaxsRb1vyK5rdKqADfpfpAsoSOaq8CDTE9wr4Xamc25HQ6w8JuW2TV J2K3aEmwBF6D8BYeVsnVZeeqHdyJtpkfM2Wrfpg2Knikv6OqWW7hS5g5zKtFE++/MPu7 8tUrqOBniGVgZG/ijzladQINHGToHqjgCTxhjBcvqWh9+fhK0eDuk3TVueNHQ4F9t5yf MwxA==
X-Received: by 10.180.104.65 with SMTP id gc1mr1847134wib.46.1418173434593; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:03:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.211.131 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:03:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:03:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsv9W9_x+RroLdsAKyhNAFGGdCTm9P3BMf1_L0XzB8UBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdb76cc87120509d23b73
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/acICq6ak_W4CWOV5ko7CCyln9dw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:04:01 -0000

My bad.

New question:  How can an endpoint that implements video but none of the
MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible"?

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC
>> compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so wrong-headed
>> that I am at a loss for words.
>>
>
> I believe you have misread the proposal. The term "WebRTC compliant" never
> appears
> anywhere in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03.
> Indeed, the word
> "compliant" does not appear.
>
> Rather, endpoints which implement neither codec qualify as "WebRTC
> Compatible".
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Sean,
>>>
>>> We can not support this draft at this time.
>>>
>>> As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can
>>> not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer
>>> community.
>>>
>>> According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is
>>> built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be
>>> forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
>>> <http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion
>>>> about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise
>>>> text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
>>>> editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>>>>
>>>> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>>>>
>>>> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m
>>>> paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR,
>>>> Time, and Trigger:
>>>>
>>>> 1) IPR:
>>>>
>>>> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
>>>> particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a
>>>> draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
>>>> draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that
>>>> adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Time:
>>>>
>>>> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>>>>
>>>> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
>>>> meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
>>>> opportunity to attend in person.
>>>>
>>>> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
>>>> revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
>>>> topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More
>>>> importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is
>>>> not required to be part of the process.
>>>>
>>>> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>>>>
>>>> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>>>>
>>>> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264
>>>> was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months
>>>> ago.  All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to
>>>> discuss the proposal.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Trigger:
>>>>
>>>> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because
>>>> it’s promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>>>>
>>>> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
>>>> proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
>>>> typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the
>>>> room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.
>>>> In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do
>>>> by December 19th.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> spt (as chair)
>>>>
>>>> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
>>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
>>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
>>>> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
>>>> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>