Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/15/2013 03:10 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 23:57 , Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I agree with others that SHOULD implement both, or other variations on SHOULD, are not helpful. They will anyway be ignored and amount to more or less the no-interop situation we're in if we continue on the current path and have no consensus.  No consensus means the various players doing as they prefer, which is what they'd do if there is a SHOULD.
> I don't agree.  I think that MUST implement at least one of them, and SHOULD do both, provides both clear guidance as to the interop points, and clear pressure to implement both.  I think it's as close to interop as we are likely to get.

I agree that the addition of SHOULD statements makes a difference in 
perception.

There's been a push at times to have SHOULD statements accompanied with 
descriptions of the conditions under which they apply; in this case, one 
could imagine a statement like "MUST implement VP8, and SHOULD implement 
H.264 (MUST unless using a business model where it's impossible to 
comply with the requirements of the available licenses for H.264 IPR)".

Focusing on the naked MUST statements seems to me to be a strategy that 
emphasizes the battle lines.