Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Magnus,
>
> In light of Harald and your responses, I'm in favor of two separate
> options for H.261 and Theora respectively. If we find a narrow those
> options down to one within the next two weeks, great, but otherwise I'd
> list them as separate options.
>
> Also, how would the "voting" work exactly? I was imagining the following
> mechanism:
>
>    - Each person is given the 10 or so options we'll end up with in 2
>    weeks.
>    - The person throws out all options they don't consider acceptable
>    under any circumstances
>    - They sort the remaining options in order of preference
>    - We tabulate the results across everyone, assigning a decreasing
>    number of points to the options as the priority decreases (meaning, 1st
>    choice gets the most points, 2nd choice less, and so on)
>    - We publish the results, how many "points" each option had and if
>    there is a huge margin for the top one, it wins.
>
>
Please please please let's not try to invent new voting systems on this
mailing list. This is an incredibly technical area
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem if you're
not convinced).

-Ekr


>    - Gili
>
>
>
> On 15/11/2013 9:22 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
> On 2013-11-15 14:51, cowwoc wrote:
>
>  +1 with the caveat that I think option 6 should simply state:
>
> 6. All entities MUST support a specific IPR-expired codec (to be decided
> at a later meeting) such as H.261 or Theora.
>
> The goal remains the same. I don't think people voting for this option
> need to know up-front what the specific codec would be so long as we
> explain that we'll try to pick the best codec possible. Correct me if
> I'm wrong :)
>
>  I would believe there are a lot of people in the WG that consider the
> IPR risks between Theora and H.261 significantly different. I realize
> that list each alternative code will result in a significantly longer
> list, but at the same time, I don't see how the above MUST statement
> allows the WG to conclude on video codec selection. If we would agree on
> the above, we would spend another year discussing our IPR beliefs around
> various codecs. From that perspective I do think there is better to have
> the individuals in the WG form their own opinions regarding an explicit
> proposal.
>
> At the same time, I would recommend that the people who believe in the
> above option, coming to an agreement now, before the process starts, on
> which codec alternative they want to support. This is after all also a
> question of how to best trade IPR risk vs capability and quality per
> bit. Thus improving that options chance.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>