Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 12/4/14 07:45, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 12/4/14, 8:00 AM, Ron wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 07:20:45PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO we need to either pull out the future-oriented text entirely 
>>> (which has
>>> its own problems) or significantly improve it. I would be happy to 
>>> propose
>>> text for the latter.
>>
>> I'd definitely be interested in seeing proposals from you to improve
>> upon these things.  It seemed premature to explore this until we had
>> some sense of whether this kind of compromise could fly at all, but
>> now that it seems it can, I think these are important details for us
>> to clarify as best we can.
>
> OK, I'll get to work. :-)

Awesome, thanks. I've always found your prose to be clearer and easier 
to read than mine anyway. :)

When you draft your text, keep in mind that what we're trying to do is 
capture the essence of the agreement that we've formed a critical mass 
around. The less formal (i.e., not really document-ready) version of 
this is:

> "WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. If compelling 
> evidence arises that one of the codecs is available for use on a 
> royalty-free basis, such as all IPR declarations known for the codec 
> being of (IETF) Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1, the IETF will change 
> this normative statement to indicate that only that codec is required. 
> For absolute, crystal clarity, this provision is only applicable to 
> WebRTC devices, and not to WebRTC User Agents."

There's nuance to be added there, for sure, but I'd encourage you not to 
color way outside those lines. Expanding scope to discuss issues such as 
*other* circumstances that may cause revisiting the MTI, for example, 
are far more likely to weaken consensus than they are to strengthen it.

/a