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

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 15:53 , Cavigioli, Chris <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Maire’s sentiments.  Let's *please* not re-open this endless discussion.   It is tedious and tiring.   We achieved a consensus decision, and it doesn’t have to be unanimous.  Let’s declare victory for WebRTC and move on.

Because (a) we didn’t; there was a tentative direction selected by the room and (b) it’s not a victory, not even for interop.

> Here are 3 things that will never be decided 100% unanimously.  Some things just cannot be. 
> 1.       Electing a president to lead a nation 
> 2.       Deciding on codecs in a standards body
> 3.       Solving the Israel - Palestine conflict
> I propose we work together as global citizens, move forward, get things done, …

That would be great.

> -chris
>  
> P.S.  I think we have all realized that there is no such thing as a 100% guaranteed RF codec, especially one that is performant.   Even ones that are declared as RF can always be argued in court…
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Allen
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 3:29 PM
> To: Maire Reavy; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
>  
> We are not re-opening this discussion. This list discussion is the decision making process.
>  
> What took place in Honolulu was only a consensus hum of those present in the room.
>  
> In IETF all decisions are made on the list and it was clearly stated by the chair in Honolulu that the decision would need to be endorsed on the list.
>  
> On 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
>  
> I note the small word "an".
>  
> If we decide on two MTI video codecs then we have clearly failed to meet this commitment.
>  
> On 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
>  
> As David pointed out we are not in two monolithic camps (this isn't the cold war here). Different companies and different individuals have different positions for different reasons. The fact that some people who might have been perceived as being in "one camp" have found a way to agree to a "compromise" based upon a definition that doesn't force them in their product to implement what they don't agree to implement does not mean that the fundamental reason behind the difficulty in reaching consensus on MTI video codecs by those whose products would be forced to implement both codecs has changed.
>  
> It's very easy to agree to someone else to have to do something that you are not willing to do yourself.
>  
> Andrew
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maire Reavy
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:41 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
>  
> On 12/5/2014 2:58 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Considering that:
> > 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
> > 2) All consensus calls on "VP8 only" and "H.264 only" have failed
> > 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps I
> > strongly support this MTI proposal.
> > Please, let's close this debate once and for all. This compromise is
> > by no means great, but it's much better than anything else we're going
> > to get otherwise (i.e. more wasted time and still no MTI).
> A big +1
>  
> We have spent *so* many hours already considering, discussing, & debating what to do about the MTI video codec.  One could argue an "insane amount" of time relative to the other issues we need to resolve.  We did this because most of us realized that "no MTI" could be horrific for the standard.  We should embrace consensus around anything less than horrific, and most of us agree that this compromise is less than horrific (not great, but less than horrific).
>  
> Right now I fear we're on the verge of shooting ourselves in the foot or head (I'm not sure which) by reopening this discussion even though we're in sight of the end.  I ask that the working group and the chairs put the proverbially safety back on the gun, declare consensus on this less-than-horrific proposal, and finish our work on "v1.0" of the spec.
>  
> Please.
>  
> -Maire
> -------------------------
> Maire Reavy
> [e-mail]
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.