Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote is not

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Sun, 24 November 2013 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 084651AE081 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Yo4UgTt7m09O for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F0351ADF6A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so5352421iec.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+4d1l1/iDMb4n2XPZdbJQJ/JW492DSjK1XsEPQAvO/E=; b=bOzeRyK4XAQQVDJ8nyRZUvGcQoHHiEqjD5TUUtPh+6FHhwhwG+Bo/AzCtDhRoonyJW Ru8u2sZ81AwLrE0peWLIaMa42wIK8OGQGnIVbkDQmIbpzRxZZM/MmRIuuH0RiyDttTGr SzWL996Sl4Ik5QRW2DTCR25/tdotq1G5WvKXesrRFdb09hPbpaDcAv0vRRDG5ipEtC4p T4mZb3K/hOh8b7uhODSaGoKZOQHuYCqiX5FWWe+t4n+GvM1XA1Vq5bo9d1X+0nIzWjk5 JJsL2D2u82Ysu7Gd/tQBdOKW3WK/j2en+kHu1EVG0m6cYF6s7n+0X+GdP7Oe39FhVUrD pH3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnguJSxI6qs7kfijhh579PAHZ5Ac8NVcbiw8abBxzby49C87vC21X3c0Sy55wJKL0LwUvlL
X-Received: by 10.50.85.115 with SMTP id g19mr10334055igz.1.1385321523631; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m1sm21433288igj.10.2013.11.24.11.32.02 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52925412.8030006@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:31:30 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E671A@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FC513.4020903@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E6731@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <52905257.1060209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBOgCDBKdpO_YM7fV11DNObwURTLnMdSuCHsM4CrEiP2Wg@mail.gmail.com> <20131123190457.GG3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20131123190457.GG3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opinions are fine, bypassing a vote is not
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: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:32:13 -0000

Eric,

Just so there is no confusion: if you manage to convince us that X is 
"strictly better" than H.261 then I'd jump on board. I was trying to 
explain that many people are trying to remove H.261 as an option by 
explaining how bad it is. Going down this road won't change our minds 
because we already agree that it is a shitty codec.

The only way to convince us that X is "strictly better" than H.261 is to 
talk about X (not H.261) and demonstrate that it meets our IPR 
requirements. Do that, and you will have my vote (and probably that of 
others).

Kind regards,
Gili

On 23/11/2013 2:04 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:59:14AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> I would like to push back on this a bit. Say that we had general consensus
>> that Theora was strictly better than H.261.
> Do you think that such a consensus might actually exist?
>
> It seems fairly obvious to me that Theora would be a better choice than
> H.261, but I haven't seen any indication that it wouldn't be subject to
> exactly the same FUD that VP8 has.  Is my impression wrong about that?
>
> If it's not, then H.261 _does_ have the advantage of its IPR and licencing
> situation being far less controversial - dare I say near to irrefutable?
>
> I'd be willing to entertain a consensus call on the idea that Theora was
> considered _strictly_ better than H.261 here.  And happy to be proven
> wrong in this case.
>
>
>> I'm already pretty sad about all the options
> amen.
>
>> and I don't think it's bad to winnow the field if there is near-unanimity
>> on something....
> I agree.  I'm likewise disappointed that your repeated hints about the
> troubles of voting for a field filled with many questionable options
> seems to have been lost in the noise.
>
>    Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb