Re: [rtcweb] Why the Straw Poll

I also think it is important that we should be able to work between devices.

However the devices I want to work between are webRTC devices and SIP devices, and other devices that are currently using video codecs.

Unfortunately we seem to have got the mandatory to implement video codec stated in the charter (without any thought or real discussion in my view of the implications), but every suggestion that we need requirements to interwork with existing infrastructure has been shouted down by certain groups. However that does not mean that there is consensus not to do this, just that there is no position.

Yes one can deploy infrastructure to do transcoding, but inherently that costs (and why should one force the cost to be on someone wanting to interwork with existing infrastructure), and potentially loses video quality (and should therefore be reserved for where one wants to conference different codecs together rather than on end to end sessions).

So fundamentally we are trying to address the wrong set of documented requirements.

Regards

Keith

P.S. And I did ask a few messages back which documents the chairs want to work on with higher priority, and I have had no response. So obviously they only want the WG to work on video codec MTI.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> Sent: 12 December 2013 01:10
> To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] Why the Straw Poll
> 
> 
> Let me try and answer what I think is your central issue here 
> which is: why are we spending any time on this topic. 
> 
> We have heard from a significant number of people that they 
> think it is important for WebRTC devices and applicaitons to 
> be able to know that video will work between devices. It was 
> the number one requested item when speaking to the various 
> developers with products demonstrated at WebRTC Expo and a 
> significant issue on this email list. It is one of the 
> several topics the chairs are driving forward. We plan to 
> continue to do try to drive it to resolution. Note resolution 
> includes consensus for no MTI. 
> 
> However, we perfectly well understand that you, or others, 
> may not want to spend time on the video MTI issue. Feel free 
> to ignore the email threads if you believe the outcome is 
> inevitable and put your time into some of the other things we 
> are also driving forward. 
> 
> Cullen in my co-chair role (and I'm not speaking for my 
> co-chairs but I am pretty sure they also want to drive this 
> issue to resolution) 
> 
> 
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) 
> <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
> 
> > I believe we are way off the acceptable process track here.
> >  
> > First, there was a discussion and a call for rough 
> consensus at the last IETF in-person meeting. That call was 
> not continued on the list, instead a lack of consensus was 
> declared at the meeting.
> >  
> > Next, there was a proposal from the chairs to vote in a 
> particular way, and a call for options on which to vote. It 
> was claimed at that time that after the list was compiled, 
> the act of taking such a vote would be taken to a consensus 
> call. That never happened.
> >  
> > Instead the chairs are now conducting a "straw poll" of 
> their own design, clearly in an effort to circumvent some 
> very specific objections to the proposed instant-runoff vote 
> with restricted participation. But again, instead of 
> attempting to reach WG consensus for conducting such a poll, 
> it has simply been foisted upon us.
> >  
> > I have not seen ANY replies to the message "Next Steps in 
> Video Codec Selection Process" that indicate working group 
> consensus of ANY KIND for conducting a poll in this format at 
> this time or to follow the subsequent steps described in that message.
> >  
> > I am requesting that the chairs immediately suspend the 
> "Straw Poll" 
> > described below until such time as there is Working Group 
> consensus to 
> > spend the Working Group's time and energy conducting the 
> poll and/or 
> > to continue with the subsequent steps called out in "Next Steps in 
> > Video Codec Selection Process" at 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 