Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Emil Ivov <> Sat, 23 November 2013 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4961AE136 for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0JOGs70_D4UN for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF1D1AE0A3 for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ca18so1902831wib.10 for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=widwuLhwnz/qhmzfX1lif0JxcHbTtoclnUen5jzJT2E=; b=G7Rvx+bE6+nvr/CfYcSkVDAgLgtKKvd29PcAHZJa9tbQNloF5NKo/tQjvYNF3hbDpZ OLgo3jtgD3CQ5gsXeSAZJHbMxL7Fw805mm810Bcvdf62WvDPOhzIrOdW1UM57qLJtcZG H6Ql3qGPXmMSsVca/xeMjhTofG/WoMYCv6s2Ye37wpaiXxPZQ+6Az18sMEQjsopf+tkF ugc1jiTaxvJtoKsmza4itk5HkfnZAMNOcxqorAL4O4qCboRVgiOJ7Ok3vU3WhjAcJpfd AFGChBjkiGWUp2eedDiLJAcz5fmZpmVyyCHoWk8/5iItHWiro57p0jlD1Tj1amYn2vpI 1y+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDtTr9Rf+M12WWTEnyEqP7tb0LGIzmxppzrN33elzb/8Z1Cj0YT6aC0LH9agNBdHy3ATIz
X-Received: by with SMTP id jb13mr6838560wic.55.1385217649659; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from camionet.local ([2a01:e35:8a04:14f0:313a:136a:ba2:be0a]) by with ESMTPSA id fu1sm26661089wib.8.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 15:40:46 +0100
From: Emil Ivov <>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:41:00 -0000

On 23.11.13, 09:33, cowwoc wrote:
> # People objecting to the very idea of voting (versus making the decision
> on a technical merit) miss the fact that this is no longer a technical
> debate.
>   * We have already agreed that both VP8 and H.264 are technically "good
>     enough". The only remaining differences are of a political and
>     licensing in nature.

Indeed they are and the IETF is not an organisation that can resolve 
political and licensing issues *through voting*.

Imagine you have disease A and you consult a doctor. You get all 
necessary examinations then a week later you go back and she says:

"I can't tell you what the best cure for you is. There is no consensus 
on the subject. There were two candidates that could do the job but one 
requires killing a 1000 puppies and one little piggy to produce a single 
pill while the other one hasn't passed FDA approval yet and it might 
just end up killing you"

"That said," she goes on, "we took a vote with my beer buddies and every 
one who had ever sent me a mail containing the words 'disease A'. That 
vote said you MUST take the puppy/piggy slaughtering pill."

"I MUST?," you say barely believing.

"Yup," she confirms, "You MUST! Otherwise you are not getting reimbursed 
for your medical expenses and your medical insurance contract is being 


This has nothing to do with exactly how important an MTI is. It's about 
what the IETF can and cannot do. If we can reach consensus on a solution 
(e.g. some combination of MTI encoders/decoders) then great. Otherwise 
someone else will have to do the choice. It could be the W3C It could be 
some WebRTC Alliance/Forum. That decision can just as easily be 
referenced in RFP requirements.