Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs

Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> Fri, 08 November 2013 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.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 4993F21E814B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:23:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 c6yoNCFa0mER for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BEA21E80D2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id n7so150661lam.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:22:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NKiVJWHKlPu0j4Q4WIHDne5xy5P49YS/SZD4NwYRkik=; b=PUJu4bCpbiY+R8oajgMqbFBarqLURM31MHC2w48wiF6lSf+YmY8utUPH0Mv93LZ/rb l9uwPrCQZEWCm6e9kSM/CGbwdOzJOWXUIGMPzM7gDRtJcXimj+SqdeMExp/dyaFrkSge Tjjt2r4nfhBPjpcCfZJ2pF9vFekMHTyVhgi1ETQseEElkx9JfmGznOY7GGmzuxCcKtEj 0fsiF7bBs4ryLB7ytoWQ7rWXaTSqTniMESDfsiOJLSw+mdjptAXxpC6CMAw9c/hAu+bQ uV+ry2yMmi9qiWgcaR++ys3RVqxmFvPns2W+hrYgvH4+bultZxkjcAZ840/JfXS7gQSN CYgA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.143.6 with SMTP id sa6mr8790851lab.20.1383877378000; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.63.164 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:22:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <527C38FF.6040000@nostrum.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQ730sjjv5Ly0_TFmdz=ryhPN13+A69_0_MedotHGEthg@mail.gmail.com> <527C38FF.6040000@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:22:57 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: up2GhVjLr-9a4I2_1kiU4qQHeO8
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSGdmFaxZ4jtYjyG9tDqKv09-L8FXSybeHrgvzNtdqYpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs
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, 08 Nov 2013 02:23:00 -0000

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> Our situation is radically different: there are a number of actual arguments
> to be made for both options.

We've heard these arguments, at long length, and have, apparently, not
found them sufficiently decisive or we wouldn't be at this juncture.

I must have failed to make the point I was attempting to make
sufficiently clear.  Let me retry: If we believe that an MTI video
codec, regardless of what it is, was an independently important thing
to have then "no MTI" shouldn't be the result of failing to achieve an
MTI in discussion, because there exist _an option_, any option, to
achieve a MTI video codec.  So I was hoping to see any support for "no
MTI" (which sounded very popular in the room) to come with arguments
for why an MTI doesn't actually matter.

Without intending any "push", strong or otherwise, I'll point out that
the apparent difficulty in responding to my message without
allegations of irrational arguments and emotional investments
increases my estimation that locating a set of "randomly selected
neutral parties" which is sufficiently non-partisan to not cloud the
process is not obviously possible.  Without that kind of doubt in mind
it's not clear to me if that alternative process could be successful,
which is why I attempted to illustrate my point with the 4.4 coinflip.
Coinflip will produce a result, and the result it will produce will
achieve the goal of selecting an MTI codec (especially in
consideration of substantial support for either option, both on the list
and in the room), and it doesn't require selecting non-partisan
parties.  I wasn't trying to say it was _good_ though, only that it
was enough to say failure to pick an MTI alone isn't enough to justify
removing MTI for the sake of MTI from the goals.

(There are plenty of other arguments that can be made about the
non-optimality of the 3929 panel process— e.g. the requirement to meet
nomcom requirements with physical meeting attendance would generally
make it easy for large corporate contributors, especially ones with
diverse participation, to be over represented. But, to be frank, your
response has made me feel uncomfortable pointing that much out... I
didn't start this thread with an intention to argue against it, but I
wonder after your message if anyone else would dare.)