Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Tue, 28 January 2014 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 5FC971A03E8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5YFdpT9xtWag for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03021A0379 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id as1so538557iec.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AanDVEpNdzrDwp6+ukmC9MHsm80sJ+DecsJ759yip/c=; b=MhFfLa86cKz+8VWqv+I75HC1wn+z34HDggll5qF8Nqq6P8B6PUotGrnSw7DfSEUkB9 FeO7Ko7SOO6Ee+gTowZ+s8YRSDFHTnDExOLPBxoVEIwqr+oOKr/Jp5Uu5h8yiqNCFGsN zEs5CvkKBn6T/AQ5Lo6VvIVAEHaymHm8mEeREfBEx+fG235NLykqYrcTo/Xw61xOPIL2 9acScqxUe3omSc7O5sAQXBiGG+sNfP0CG1b7PbZ8e0QfeFiz1aXYJ7NXZiNNillOweJQ 3LVHU9prSHiSWcUGCj5AyGNTO+lZvzPJHUosqpoU3Fj7PDhQrI6U6zQ2U9sPVstzqVPA c7OA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.227.195 with SMTP id jb3mr1494184icb.27.1390922101062; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.58.137 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:15:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
References: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:15:00 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN72xVNgJhrp+gpr4_Pr98gzeRAiELetmye+VZ+AWSQ00w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133df8ebe8a0604f109496f"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:15:09 -0000

I fully support tabling this discussion.

Mary.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> Dear WG,
>
> After reviewing the poll results found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/pdfWd2PIhOY9y.pdf the
> chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an MTI is
> required for the WebRTC ecology to develop.    There are a number of
> options which did not garner significant support; essentially only options
> 1, 2, 3, 4 seem to have enough support that they might be the eventual
> basis of working group consensus.  The chairs do not view the other options
> as having sufficient support to warrant further working group activity or
> discussion.
>
> There is no obvious leader between VP8 and H.264, however, nor obvious
> support for selecting both.  Each has similar numbers of supporting
> positions and objections, and both have the support of well over half the
> participants in the straw poll.  Given that, we are no closer to being able
> to choose between them at this time.
>
> The chairs therefore propose tabling the discussion of a mandatory to
> implement video codec until about 6 week before the start of the IETF 91
> meeting in November 2014. This is so that the working group can focus its
> energy on completing other work.  We do expect to begin work on the video
> document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to meet its milestone of December, but
> initially without specifying which of the two codecs is the WG consensus
> for MTI.
>
> When we return to the discussion, the working group chairs currently
> expect to run a consensus call on support for each codec to be mandatory to
> implement.  This expectation may change, however, based on new information
> or working group experience.
>
> If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September 29,
> 2014 please let us know by February 4.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cullen, Magnus, Ted <the chairs>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>