Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really going to spend 2 full hours rehashing this?

I totally agree with the sentiment that the WG can make much better use of
the 2 hours.  We previously spent 2+ hours on this topic with no
conclusion.  Is the new information on VP8 enough to change anyone's
opinion?  Why not ask the questions that were proposed for this topic *now*
on the mailing list?

Regards,
Mary.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> I've read the H.264 Constrained Baseline proposal.
>
> It contains no information that hasn't been presented to the list long
> ago; all but the performance evaluations were presented in Florida.
>
> I've written the VP8 proposal.
> It contains new information, but only in the form of pointing out that VP8
> is more widely deployed, closer to being an ISO standard, and working
> better than when we discussed this in Florida. It is also being universally
> deployed in existing WebRTC implementations (Mozilla and Chrome).
>
> We know that for most participants, the IPR issue is the only real issue.
> So far, I haven't seen any of the people who were saying "we want to ship
> products but can't possibly use H.264" saying that they have changed their
> minds.
>
> Yet the chairs are proposing the following 2-hour agenda:
>
> Frame discussions and process and agenda: 10 min (chairs)
>
> VP8 presentation with clarify questions -  25 min (???)
>
> H.264 presentation with clarify questions - 25 min (???)
>
> Microphone discussions of pro/cons - 40 min (all)
>
> Call the question - 10 min ( chairs )
>
> Wrap up and next steps - 10 min (chairs)
>
> Celebrate on our successful decision reach.
>
>
> Don't we have ways in which we can make better use of 2 hours?
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>