Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 28 November 2013 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214311AC828 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PM_cm1TJNWau for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDC21A8032 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so13796268iej.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fq6XZ7zVh2GKZLLL+sEw+nOxRSWv28WZMLwepIVNjWM=; b=Yjp5SIqs+su96PmLESOw0IuqFaIk4jMl6b86u2TyO+jQnMJP+BiSCSlYtz32N4p8T/ bblVIOT/ksVWIk3ojXHKd9fh8Mn4/h8yG7jNs0QwafhGTuY8a00QifhUKDHOHHWOfIPH Og6fqX+hfWaGmKMHNef0j/uu3t7zHq8LwzmhykSjtV0s0EDs59A87LiQlu46RaFU22w2 FUPKYNYeNb0oMq63B1GVcjEZMIucp1XL3NDh18Kz4/swLS9XdwBAUY9Xn4bcPlMSOCOQ 294lAlQ3aFI9BtUe4fEiqX5KpsYVxRQoxuNyAeNMlCeLW1krA4qeqLHuPeJ+U2+8Okok 9N7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmSkYQCzhgITGEzhibnbiKljcfJFL676aU8TGk+ANWNRE8vzO40h5Ss8Km8QuAVmP520RhX
X-Received: by 10.50.117.3 with SMTP id ka3mr380963igb.15.1385609870199; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm42290786igr.7.2013.11.27.19.37.48 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:37:02 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 03:37:53 -0000

On 27/11/2013 6:31 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> I haven't seen any arguments against those objections. Just people 
> worried that if a vote does eventually happen their favorite option 
> might not be on the list.

I've heard objections along the lines of "IETF does not vote. We reach 
consensus by evaluating the technical merits of each argument and choose 
the one with the least number of objections".

My counter-argument is that this isn't a technical question (we've 
reached consensus that both VP8 and H.264 are "good enough" from a 
technical point of view). This is a legal and political question. You 
can resolve the legal question by deferring to legal experts and 
political question by voting. That's how we ended up where we are today.

> I haven't seen anyone explaining how any possible constituency would 
> be defended 

That is a legitimate concern, but I believe that with additional 
discussion we'll be able to reach a consensus on it.

> You seem to assume that rough consensus necessarily lies somewhere. It 
> doesn't. Sometimes people agree to disagree.

Anyone who feels this way should feel free to vote for "No MTI".

> What if 30% objected to voting as a third choice?

I suspect that if a substantial number of people vote for "No MTI" then 
it would warrant further investigation. I can't comment on what the 
actual threshold should be.

> Or it may be game theory in action. It's an entirely new land where 
> the IETF has not ventured before. Doing so now cannot work! A vote in 
> the IETF is only a reason to contest the results forever and discredit 
> the work of this group.

I don't agree. Giving up on MTI because of we have multiple good options 
and a very polarized community would be like throwing out the baby with 
the bathwater.

People see a lot of arguing on the mailing list and mistake it for a 
lack of consensus. Where they see a lack of consensus, I see a good 
evaluation process that has fleshed out the technical and legal issues 
of each codec. My hope is that this will allow the community to make an 
informed decision.

Gili