Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Sounds like only consensus so far is we agree to disagree

> On Oct 21, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> 
> Unless H.264 became royalty free or royalty free profile for H.264 is developed (and I am talking about ability to include any implementation of this H.264 profile into any project without paying royalties, not linking to something the end user must  download), H.264 would not be acceptable to me as an MTI. All the other news updates regarding H.264 are irrelevant. I would assume most open source developer or smaller software developers would share my opinion.
> 
> Settled law suits regarding VP8 also do not provide a significant change regarding video MTI.
> 
> There is nothing here to discuss except that we all want video MTI, but we cannot agree on one. Why waste time on this?
> 
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net> wrote:
>> @Alexandre - you say "Today, nothing has changed with respect to those two items (even though providing open264 royalties and absorbing the license cost for some platforms might have been a set in the right direction). ". But, as you say, the availability of Firefox with H264 is a change (previously it was not yet available); the fact that Cisco has in fact fronted the cost is a change (at the last meeting some were skeptical this would happen, but it has). The other big news was IOS8, which now enables apps to access H264 and Apple pays the cost. Last time, the lack of a solution on IOS was a big deal. That is also now, no longer an issue. As such I think there are material changes.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> @jonathan,
>>> 
>>> while you are right and availability of 264 implementation or hardware acceleration has improved, it has never been reported as a problem in the previous pool by anyone. The 264 royalties, and the VP8 IP risks were, AFAIR, the main reasons used by individuals to justify their positions. Today, nothing has changed with respect to those two items (even though providing open264 royalties and absorbing the license cost for some platforms might have been a set in the right direction). This is why I think the conditions are not met for a consensus to be reached.
>>> 
>>> Alex.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the technology"
>>>> 
>>>> [BA] Specifying an MTI encoder/decoder is not sufficient for interoperability.  It is also necessary to specify the transport in enough detail to allow independent implementations that interoperate well enough to be usable in a wide variety of scenarios, including wireless networks where loss is commonly experienced.  
>>>> 
>>>> We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously with not enough details on that subject, particularly with respect to H.264. draft-ietf-rtcweb-video sections 4.2 - 4.4 remain sketchy at best.  
>>>> 
>>>> So if we are to have the discussion again, it should occur in the context of detailed specifications and interoperability reports.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net> wrote:
>>>>> I'm in favor of taking another run at this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The working group has repeatedly said that an MTI codec is something we need to produce. And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the technology (not the only one for sure).
>>>>> 
>>>>> And things have changed since the last meeting, a year ago now (November in Vancouver). Cisco's open264 plugin shipped and now just recently is integrated into Firefox. iOS8 shipped with APIs for H264. There are other things worth noting. Will this change the minds of everyone? Surely not. Will it sway enough for us to achieve rough consensus? Maybe. IMHO - worth finding out.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> +1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has been made on VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing harald's  feeling that there was no change on the members position. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>>>>> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in -overview: It guards against interoperability failure.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box, connect it to everything else, and run well for *some* level of "well" - and I would prefer that ecosystem to be one where it's possible to field the box without making prior arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we discussed it. And I don't see much movement on the specifics of the proposals either.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So using some time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to make sense. (And 4.1 isn't finished either. There's one sentence that needs to be removed.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu. But I'd prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some significant players have actually changed their minds.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll respondents have said "I have changed my mind".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Harald
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply because
>>>>>>>>>> wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than actually
>>>>>>>>>> finishing a specification that can be independently implemented by all
>>>>>>>>>> browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near having, as far as
>>>>>>>>>> I can tell)
>>>>>>>>> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
>>>>>>>>> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
>>>>>>>>> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
>>>>>>>>> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
>>>>>>>>> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>>>>>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>>>>> jdrosen@jdrosen.net
>>>>> http://www.jdrosen.net
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>> jdrosen@jdrosen.net
>> http://www.jdrosen.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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