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

Basically, yes.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:25 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  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 <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> 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
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
>