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

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mary,

     I understand. So you're saying that the WG believes that this topic 
has been discussed to death and therefore would like to call it to a 
vote without (or with a shorter) discussion, is that correct?

Gili

On 14/10/2013 2:26 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Gili,
>
> The concern is around 2 hours on the agenda at the upcoming f2f meeting:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09037.html
>
> We already spent around hours on this topic at a previous f2f IETF. 
>  Here's the multi-media recording for your enjoyment:
> http://ietf86.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#RTCWEB_III
>
> BTW, Meetecho is a great way for remote folks to follow the f2f IETF 
> meetings.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mary.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM, cowwoc <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Harald,
>
>         What's the alternative? Whether the discussion happens on the
>     mailing list or a call it sounds to me like you've got people with
>     entrenched views. I'll take this opportunity to remind you of
>     another option: mandate a codec whose IPR has expired and have
>     clients negotiate up from there. This compromise displeases
>     everyone equally, but it allows us to proceed without any further
>     delay.
>
>     Gili
>
>
>     On 14/10/2013 10:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand 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
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>