Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

I would argue that because we have selected Opus and G.711, we have already satisfied the charter requirements.

  6.  Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported by
        a client to improve interoperability.

Can we move on and focus time on more relevant issues?

-Chris

On Sep 13, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ted --
> 
> The H.264 vs. VP8 discussion has at this point been "overtaken by events", so that the proposed plan below would be a waste of everybody's time, about as relevant as debating the fashion merits of bell bottoms versus nehru jackets.  
> 
> With Google having announced plans to implement VP9 (potentially with SVC), and with the recent ratification of H.265, the industry has moved on, and so should RTCWEB. 
> 
> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:52:24 -0700
> From: ted.ietf@gmail.com
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org; fluffy@cisco.com; magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> Subject: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
> 
> 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 list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb