Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF9711E820D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rpt4BXCSprUH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C43D11E81BC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x55so172100wes.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:28:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=yek4WK90++5sCQSRKhuV1QpiYZ5wLVepCluZy3reCts=; b=DNFIe+QXuRQiC0bw20jIKLhLKVBQwD5nBvWobd+pZoKTiYimIpC9m0KlUVbx22dYRq iHq1g6Vl62zrFT1/fX9YvQfphKG6kXyeXvSOVO6MTv3NLGy7K3axI/7E9HU/JHOBVUvn XzdF4JoIBp4/z5b5IU8vxjI6rKvAOriykIdhpHoTCcW4W/VzGMQ5B75TcI9otUMiaVb4 d8U5zRzurwTjCCKgygfDG6CaIQiU5njd8vQl8Q1oWSXXXm1yHUO6TZ96HfvvAJWoQDNL /yKXko/kdF4qTB20cfED12HdvLjrugymbkQcA1eofoIABPcSVZZC9UR6BCJVIhAEY5x8 1FDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQjWOh2MvjkBsV4Kqxbl2IhKZ8NeiJsJVmtyd96aHIXyvLS+XSbH8WiAoZS5YArUvqgyem
X-Received: by 10.180.221.38 with SMTP id qb6mr8055662wic.8.1384536506636; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:28:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:27:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <528657C2.9040600@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <5e5c891jdb3sam85hb1485ru3r5hj0pclg@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAGgHUiRW=1MLNs+z-2CgMXJgeqZkpZuNQxWMzJphO2h9yKHbwg@mail.gmail.com> <528626F7.1050101@bbs.darktech.org> <52862E34.50309@ericsson.com> <528640FC.9010905@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPNU1hK0h5M+KwOFJhyaNo=tWJUe_Z7GRL46VRzK-W4sg@mail.gmail.com> <528657C2.9040600@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:27:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM9LHXYevHkB8tovhTxy=-qZ_jCq9qzvpvmkkRQUu-o1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134d2daa8351904eb3a8625
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:28:33 -0000

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:

>  On 15/11/2013 11:23 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:
>
>>  Magnus,
>>
>> In light of Harald and your responses, I'm in favor of two separate
>> options for H.261 and Theora respectively. If we find a narrow those
>> options down to one within the next two weeks, great, but otherwise I'd
>> list them as separate options.
>>
>> Also, how would the "voting" work exactly? I was imagining the following
>> mechanism:
>>
>>    - Each person is given the 10 or so options we'll end up with in 2
>>    weeks.
>>    - The person throws out all options they don't consider acceptable
>>    under any circumstances
>>    - They sort the remaining options in order of preference
>>    - We tabulate the results across everyone, assigning a decreasing
>>    number of points to the options as the priority decreases (meaning, 1st
>>    choice gets the most points, 2nd choice less, and so on)
>>    - We publish the results, how many "points" each option had and if
>>    there is a huge margin for the top one, it wins.
>>
>>
>  Please please please let's not try to invent new voting systems on this
> mailing list. This is an incredibly technical area
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem if you're
> not convinced).
>
> Eric,
>
> I'm not trying to achieve what is mentioned in that Wikipedia post.
>

I have no idea what you think you are trying to do, then. What you
described is
precisely a voting system (though not a good one) and so we have all the
usual
problems.



> Meaning, I believe it is acceptable for the resulting tally to violate the
> wishes of individual priorities.
>

I don't know what you mean by "violate the wishes of individual priorities".
The task here is to try to come to an overall decision that aggregates
people's individual preferences. That's hard for the reasons I indicated.



>  But anyway, let's say you still object, what is your counter-proposal?
> What were we planning to do?
>

I was planning to let the chairs propose something.

With that said, there's a huge literature on voting systems so no doubt one
of the many
well-known systems (Approval, IRV, ...) can be used without the need for us
to invent
something new.

-Ekr