Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote is not (was: H.261)

Ron <ron@debian.org> Sat, 23 November 2013 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 E013B1AE20B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:05:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 cf6zyBmYIunI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2B71AE193 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-50-7.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.50.7]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2013 05:35:00 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887EE4F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:34:58 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Ds9vU1Ap5M1i for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:34:58 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F24ED4F902; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:34:57 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 05:34:57 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131123190457.GG3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E671A@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FC513.4020903@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E6731@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <52905257.1060209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBOgCDBKdpO_YM7fV11DNObwURTLnMdSuCHsM4CrEiP2Wg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOgCDBKdpO_YM7fV11DNObwURTLnMdSuCHsM4CrEiP2Wg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote is not (was: H.261)
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 19:05:10 -0000

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:59:14AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I would like to push back on this a bit. Say that we had general consensus
> that Theora was strictly better than H.261.

Do you think that such a consensus might actually exist?

It seems fairly obvious to me that Theora would be a better choice than
H.261, but I haven't seen any indication that it wouldn't be subject to
exactly the same FUD that VP8 has.  Is my impression wrong about that?

If it's not, then H.261 _does_ have the advantage of its IPR and licencing
situation being far less controversial - dare I say near to irrefutable?

I'd be willing to entertain a consensus call on the idea that Theora was
considered _strictly_ better than H.261 here.  And happy to be proven
wrong in this case.


> I'm already pretty sad about all the options

amen.

> and I don't think it's bad to winnow the field if there is near-unanimity
> on something....

I agree.  I'm likewise disappointed that your repeated hints about the
troubles of voting for a field filled with many questionable options
seems to have been lost in the noise.

  Ron