Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 E531F1A00E2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:01:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 WhrAIImmbd7p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9F501A002B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:01:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x13so2072051wgg.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:01:44 -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=RCs1/bcVevozLtcrMVGatYVb489PoIDv8AI1KnsIDTI=; b=hVqGwgwxIvi15FvPXdDFF+O//Jr/Yxn4LO5eHCb7PRAD5ILsQXz77Vb1N/Apg6DTAr 8vdGRqT8cnD56IwvozLyWiNX+t/trrHZ8ieL1vMwHg+14LR1GMvnHNmC7Ns1SYidoqP7 /6h0RdBLcdiIZ1AeTcJgx1AKVwHt9Y8/Cy53aizs0jc/zfq7Xe5rzYeKX9yy8/Vy8TwQ 7m0S/YFdnUKqQOhuLSUz44SCi6wz0y7vCNwMlQbEwq3QL/zt770fB7Qvk3oQUu/YQcwf n2vs8PxHt1PdunNZy8EEvzwlGVE08PFTjUvbM5xx+nHbNdRioSKMDBO9qukBAxD362t4 Sh+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlRoP5N7EQ+J8HrrVzWd1aaMOENWx3pLxm4FMI5Jnx6IOTvIJQC39dsamaXZGaox95M1Pnk
X-Received: by 10.194.19.38 with SMTP id b6mr1093424wje.44.1418162504613; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:01:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.130.34 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:01:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:01:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b472a945255b40509cfb0b4
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yADk440sWGyNIiu5gLmK-PMrP5o
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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, 09 Dec 2014 22:01:50 -0000

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC
> compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so wrong-headed
> that I am at a loss for words.
>

I believe you have misread the proposal. The term "WebRTC compliant" never
appears
anywhere in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03. Indeed,
the word
"compliant" does not appear.

Rather, endpoints which implement neither codec qualify as "WebRTC
Compatible".

-Ekr


> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Sean,
>>
>> We can not support this draft at this time.
>>
>> As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs, but we can
>> not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI on our developer
>> community.
>>
>> According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every app that is
>> built using our tools. Codec selection should be their choice and not be
>> forced upon them. This seems to be a rather unreasonable expectation.
>>
>>
>> *Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
>> <http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively discussion about
>>> codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec compromise."  The compromise text
>>> that was discussed appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
>>> editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>>>
>>> This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>>>
>>> In the room, I heard the following objections and responses (and I’m
>>> paraphrasing here), which I’ll take the liberty of categorizing as IPR,
>>> Time, and Trigger:
>>>
>>> 1) IPR:
>>>
>>> Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may restrict what a
>>> particular organization feels comfortable with including in their browser
>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known.  There is even a
>>> draft summarizing the current IPR status for VP8:
>>> draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation.  The sense of the room was still that
>>> adopting the compromise text was appropriate.
>>>
>>> 2) Time:
>>>
>>> 2.1) Time to consider decision:
>>>
>>> Objection: The decision to consider the compromise proposal at this
>>> meeting was provided on short notice and did not provide some the
>>> opportunity to attend in person.
>>>
>>> Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear discussion would be
>>> revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first agenda proposal for the WG included this
>>> topic [1], and the topic was never removed by the chairs.    More
>>> importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in person attendance is
>>> not required to be part of the process.
>>>
>>> 2.2) Time to consider text:
>>>
>>> Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>>>
>>> Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8 and H.264 was
>>> among the options in the straw poll conducted more than six months ago.
>>> All decisions are confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss
>>> the proposal.
>>>
>>> 3) Trigger:
>>>
>>> Objection: The “trigger” sentence [3] is all kinds of wrong because it’s
>>> promising that the future IETF will update this specification.
>>>
>>> Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents the current
>>> proposal can be changed through the consensus process at any other time.
>>>
>>>
>>> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
>>> typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the
>>> room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.
>>> In keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any other issues that they would like to raise please do
>>> by December 19th.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> spt (as chair)
>>>
>>> [0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
>>> [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
>>> [4] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>