Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Considering that:
1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
2) All consensus calls on "VP8 only" and "H.264 only" have failed
3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
I strongly support this MTI proposal.
Please, let's close this debate once and for all. This compromise is
by no means great, but it's much better than anything else we're going
to get otherwise (i.e. more wasted time and still no MTI).

	Jean-Marc

On 05/12/14 08:36 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> All,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the
> WG included this topic [1], 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise
> please do by December 19th.
> 
> Cheers, spt (as chair)
> 
> [0] 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
> [1] 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
> [2] 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..." [4] 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUgg5wAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q90aMH+gN/lwv67+DCxVoE1LggbZLK
PIwig8wq/+wVW3kY/7wmqt7ZQVlGkxJLq/QaHqSzk3awwPFF8Ed3rrUCd75BK7mY
5BUB17cPfcLK/ehVs41T0jOILOX9aiHXadUebOmIetxJIdkzoJJYbNebA5J2ai+Y
XSykzntzNcmCoHFjDXST3JJZtF/Zl/BdQjchvNYdNOCIhrs68oiokyfweg3Kxfrk
WT3xmPXcxhkuPKxZNJi225c1zEQA4t2RBtNbpbjbnS63JnvcNJYu0gvR4hsg8/bR
gIA+FIip3RRpKxlDoxWQSZhOHh1DQlP+kosDBVkvULre9BBL91yQHqH5Sp4OXIY=
=LLMM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----