IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Tue, 28 January 2014 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 49E091A019B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:13:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 ejJEigi6v5A8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0DB1A00A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FBC4509B6; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:13:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:13:09 -0700
Message-Id: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
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, 28 Jan 2014 05:13:20 -0000

Dear WG,

After reviewing the poll results found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/pdfWd2PIhOY9y.pdf the chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an MTI is required for the WebRTC ecology to develop.    There are a number of options which did not garner significant support; essentially only options 1, 2, 3, 4 seem to have enough support that they might be the eventual basis of working group consensus.  The chairs do not view the other options as having sufficient support to warrant further working group activity or discussion.

There is no obvious leader between VP8 and H.264, however, nor obvious support for selecting both.  Each has similar numbers of supporting positions and objections, and both have the support of well over half the participants in the straw poll.  Given that, we are no closer to being able to choose between them at this time.  

The chairs therefore propose tabling the discussion of a mandatory to implement video codec until about 6 week before the start of the IETF 91 meeting in November 2014. This is so that the working group can focus its energy on completing other work.  We do expect to begin work on the video document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to meet its milestone of December, but initially without specifying which of the two codecs is the WG consensus for MTI.

When we return to the discussion, the working group chairs currently expect to run a consensus call on support for each codec to be mandatory to implement.  This expectation may change, however, based on new information or working group experience.

If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September 29, 2014 please let us know by February 4.

Thank you, 

Cullen, Magnus, Ted <the chairs>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email