On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil, if you can't even get the name of VP8 right, I think you are demonstrating a basic lack of knowledge about the area.On 12/04/2013 06:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why MPEG-2? MPEG-2 video is MPEG-1 video plus interlace support. Do we want interlace? More to the point, do we want to burden our decoders to implement interlace support (which is non-trivial) when no sane encoder would send interlace in a PC or mobile environment, even if the bitstream format would allow for it?Stephan
As I said in a previous message, the actual choice of encoding does not really matter so much as the criteria.
The group is unable to come to agreement between the two choices. This is because both choices are de facto encumbered even if there may be dispute about the validity of the claims.
What I thought was a settled principle in the IETF is that the IETF does not choose a encumbered technology as MTI if there is a viable unencumbered alternative.
H.264 is obviously encumbered so that is excluded from consideration. Anyone with deep pockets who attempts to use AV8 is likely to be sued and suffer substantial expense regardless of the merits of the case. Ergo AV8 is effectively encumbered.
You are also proposing new solutions that seem to be minor variants of solutions already listed on the list of possible solutions ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/wiki) and doing so in a forum that is not the working group that has to come to consensus on any proposal.
Does it really matter what we call the codec if the issue that is blocking adoption is a well founded concern that it may be subject to a purported encumbrance?
I think the principle I was advancing was straightforward enough: Any decision to decide this matter by a vote is a matter for the whole IETF and not just the working group or the area ADs. And even if the IETF was to arrive at a consensus the decision would have no effect on interoperability.
As I told the ADs, I will stop discussing this matter on ietf.org as soon as they confirm that they have abandoned their silly plan for a vote.
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area. But I do expect the WG chairs and ADs to understand the procedural and business reasons that make their proposal completely unworkable for this particular issue.
Pointing out that there is existing art that meets the minimal criteria for interoperability seems completely reasonable to me. It is certainly relevant to debunking the claim that there are only two acceptable alternatives.
There are a lot of technical issues that could be put to a vote and are in fact regularly decided that way, deciding to use JSON vs XML for example could be decided by vote. Deciding an issue that will cause one set of parties or another to spend several million dollars is not an issue that can be sensibly put to a vote in any forum unless the parties who are voting are the ones that will bear the cost.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/