Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

John,

This is normal IETF process.  We had a session in Hawaii, we had a
consensus call, and now I'm confirming it on the list as well as
asking for any unaddressed issues to be raised.

The text on which I am are calling for consensus is the compromise text
that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]). Specifically:

  1. WebRTC User Agents (Browsers) MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.

  2. WebRTC devices (Non-Browsers) MUST implement both VP8 and
  H.264. If compelling evidence arises that one of the codecs is
  available for use on a royalty-free basis, such as all IPR
  declarations known for the codec being of (IETF) Royalty-Free or
  (ISO) type 1, the IETF will change this normative statement to
  indicate that only that codec is required.

The definitions of these terms are found on slide 12.

Note that there was a 3rd bullet but as noted in [2] and on slide 14
of [4], it’s really a throw away statement because it’s more of an
observation that WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to whatever they
want.

My original message also included a summary of the major issues that
were raised at the meeting. Obviously, the numbered points are
summaries but I do consider those to be an unbiased summary of the
conversation that took place at the mic. As chair, I'm asking that we
not continue to rehash discussion on those points because both sides
of each numbered point were clearly articulated.  In other words, we
need not  bike shed on one those topics any longer unless something
new is raised.

spt

On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:25, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:21 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps it is; perhaps not: we'd have to listen to the audio to be
>>> sure. Even after hearing the audio once, I'm not quite sure...
>> 
>> Again, huh?
> 
>   No, "still".
> 
>> The version that was discussed in Honolulu is on the slides here:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
>> 
>> on page 14. The text isn't exactly the same but it's substantively
>> the same as what's in the draft.
> 
>   You prove my point...
> 
>> Needless to say, having WG consensus on the substance and letting the
>> editor wordsmith the text is totally normal IETF process.
> 
>   In some cases, yes. IMHO, this is not one of them. YMMV...
> 
>> I haven't heard anyone who was at HNL and in favor of the text on the
>> slides object that Adam's text in the draft doesn't reflect those
>> slides.
> 
>   Probably you haven't...
> 
>> Besides, Eric isn't the WGC calling consensus.
>> 
>> No, the chairs did here:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
> ] 
> ] From: Sean Turner <turners at ieca.com>
> ] At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion
> ] about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."
> ] The compromise text that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4]
> ] (which is a slight editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
> ] 
> ] This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
> 
>   Actually, as I read this more carefully, that isn't a consensus call.
> Sean goes on to dismiss the objections he heard in the room:
> ] 
> ] In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I'm
> ] paraphrasing here), which I'll take the liberty of categorizing as
> ] IPR, Time, and Trigger:
> ] 
> ] 1) IPR:
> ] Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
> ] particular organization feels comfortable with including in their
> ] browser implementations.
> ] Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known. There is even a
> ] draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
> ] draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still
> ] that adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
> 
>   Sean is stating his view of consensus-of-the-room.
> 
> ] 2) Time:
> ] 2.1) Time to consider decision:
> ] Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
> ] meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
> ] opportunity to attend in person.
> ] Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
> ] revisited @ IETF 91. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
> ] topic, and the topic was never removed by the chairs. More importantly,
> ] all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is not
> ] required to be part of the process.
> 
>   Sean is defending the action of the WGCs.
> 
> ] 2.2) Time to consider text:
> ] Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
> ] Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264
> ] was among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months
> ] ago. All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time
> ] to discuss the proposal.
> 
>   Sean is specifically saying the text should be discussed on-list.
> 
> ] 3) Trigger:
> ] Objection: The "trigger" sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because
> ] it's promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
> ] Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
> ] proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
> 
>   Sean is specifically saying the "trigger" should be discussed
> on-list.
> 
> ] After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
> ] typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in
> ] the room to add (aka "shove") the proposed text into
> ] draft-ietf-rtcweb-video. In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming
> ] this consensus call on the list.
> 
>   This _is_ calling for consensus.
> 
>   But Sean omitted saying _what_ text; and agreed that the exact text
> may not have been clear to those in the room.
> 
> ] If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do
> ] by December 19th.
> 
>   (And folks have been doing so.)
> 
>   I have asked on-list for the exact text before raising my issues,
> since my issues relate to the text, not the choosing to have two MTIs.
> 
>> And this message clearly points to the slides above.
> 
>   I don't find it helpful to attack the people who raise issues. YMMV.
> 
>   But what EKR thinks really doesn't matter. He is not a WGC.
> 
> --
> John Leslie <[e-mail]>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb