Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D26E21E8160 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DdBNX6D323xP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595CF21E8140 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-9081.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9081.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.144.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rA8FJF1A056649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:19:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <527D00F2.4090000@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:19:14 -0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CAAS2fgQ730sjjv5Ly0_TFmdz=ryhPN13+A69_0_MedotHGEthg@mail.gmail.com> <527C38FF.6040000@nostrum.com> <CAAS2fgSGdmFaxZ4jtYjyG9tDqKv09-L8FXSybeHrgvzNtdqYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSGdmFaxZ4jtYjyG9tDqKv09-L8FXSybeHrgvzNtdqYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 31.133.144.129 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:19:29 -0000

On 11/7/13 18:22, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I must have failed to make the point I was attempting to make
> sufficiently clear.  Let me retry: If we believe that an MTI video
> codec, regardless of what it is, was an independently important thing
> to have then "no MTI" shouldn't be the result of failing to achieve an
> MTI in discussion, because there exist_an option_, any option, to
> achieve a MTI video codec.  So I was hoping to see any support for "no
> MTI" (which sounded very popular in the room) to come with arguments
> for why an MTI doesn't actually matter.

Thanks for the clarification: I didn't get that out of your first 
message. For what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying here.

What I could make sense of was a suggestion that we turn to complete 
randomness for the decision at hand. And while that would actually make 
me happy[1], it struck me as patent nonsense from a process perspective.

> There are plenty of other arguments that can be made about the
> non-optimality of the 3929 panel process...

I tried really hard to make sure that any conversations about 3929 could 
begin playing out by giving what I think is a rather accessible 
description of that process back in Paris.

/a

___
[1] I just want an MTI [note: singular], and don't strongly care which 
one is selected. I *do* have a preference, but I don't think the 
arguments in favor of my preference are actually relevant to the IETF.