Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:59:50 +0000

We have two WebRTC session at the next IETF. We have not worked out the agenda for the first session yet but our current plan is to dedicate the second session to the MTI video codec question. 

The draft agenda for this season is:

Admin issues (5 min)

IPR at the IETF ( 10 min )
- this is a reminder of IETF rules and guidelines around IPR

Presentations ( 80 min )
- a 20 minute presentation from each of the following drafts 
     draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00
     draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal-00
     draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00
     draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00
- If the authors of drafts recommending the same codec can consult with
each other to avoid overlap, or even merge presentations, the
recovered time would be given to the general discussion.

General discussion (  30 min )
- general time for everyone to speak at the mic to express information important for the decision

Call the question of which mandatory to implement video codec to select  ( 5 min )

Next steps ( 20 min )

Cullen, Magnus, and Ted <RTCWeb Chairs>

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:12:37 -0700

I respectfully submit that the allocating the entire 150 minute session to the video codec MTI isssue is not the best use of the WG's time.   

Do we really  have to allocate 20 minutes to *each* draft?  Since 3 of 
the presentations are favoring H.264 and only one is pushing VP8, the 
fairness of this approach is questionable, and since brevity is the soul
 of wit (and argument), I believe that each side could probably do the 
job in 20 minutes max, including example videos.   

If we spend, 40 minutes on presentations, 30 minutes on discussion and 20 minutes on the combination of consensus and next steps, then that would leave an hour for other important issues, such as the way forward on SDP. 

> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:59:50 +0000
> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IETF85
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:48:34 -0400

Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>...
> Do we really  have to allocate 20 minutes to *each* draft?...

   +1

   (Disclaimer: I won't be there, but I will be listening.)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:15:50 -0600

>> Do we really  have to allocate 20 minutes to *each* draft?...

The agenda is draft and I'm sure I and the other chairs will take the feedback we get into account as we refine this closer to the meeting. The MTI video codec is a pretty big questions we are asking and my observation about getting consensus is that people need to have been given the time to make their key argument or it is very hard to get to consensus. I realize that some people believe, or even hope, that we will not get to consensus on this topic so it is all a waste of time but the WG has made it clear it does want to get to have a MTI video codec. 

So consider the situation we are in. One of the drafts says when making measurements on quality they found A was better than B while the another draft says B was better than A. Several people have asked me how this could happen two different groups ended up with opposite measurements and they want to understand more about how this could have happened and which is correct. 

Let me ask you guys a question, how many people do you think will be in the microphone line up when theses two are discussed? You have both seen plenty of controversial topics discussed at other ietf meetings. What would you recommend to people making slides for a slot like this - how many slides do you think they can reasonably get through in a time slot like this? What would your best guess be of how long we need to make these slots such that the chairs don't have to cut off the mic lineup? 

I know you could take these as vaguely cynical rhetorical questions but I don't mean them that way. I'm straight up asking you how much time you think we need such that authors of the drafts can make their key argument and people that have questions or disagreements that they think are important for the WG to understand can make ask their question.

Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:21:45 +0200

On 10/20/2012 10:12 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I respectfully submit that the allocating the entire 150 minute 
> session to the video codec MTI isssue is not the best use of the WG's 
> time.
>
> fairness of this approach is questionable, and since brevity is the 
> soul of wit (and argument), I believe that each side could probably do 
> the job in 20 minutes max, including example videos.
>
> If we spend, 40 minutes on presentations, 30 minutes on discussion and 
> 20 minutes on the combination of consensus and next steps, then that 
> would leave an hour for other important issues, such as the way 
> forward on SDP.

To my mind, the discussion so far has matured to the point where the 
presentations' salient points could be made in two sentences:

- Technical quality: Close enough that it doesn't matter.
- IPR conditions: Different enough that it matters.

Different people have made different qualitative evaluation of "which 
one is best". I have not yet heard anyone say "if X is N% better on 
measurement Y, I will support that one".

Given what lawyers say when I ask them if I can say anything about legal 
topics (including opinions about other people's licensing terms), it'll 
be hard to have a meaningful discussion on the point that matters.

This is a problem. I don't know how to resolve it. But I'd rather be 
discussing SDP than having 150 minutes of discussion on the stuff that 
doesn't matter because we can't come to grips with the stuff that matters.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:13:26 -0700

Cullen Jennings said:

"One of the drafts says when making measurements on quality they found A was
better than B while the another draft says B was better than A.  Several
people have asked me how this could happen two different groups ended up
with opposite measurements and they want to understand more about how this
could have happened and which is correct.... Let me ask you guys a question,
how many people do you think will be in the microphone line up when these
two are discussed?""
 
[BA] Assuming those at the mic would be asking clarifying questions, why do
we need to wait until IETF 85 to begin that discussion?   If each side were
to start a thread on the list, at least some of the clarifying questions
could be gotten out of the way beforehand.  Who knows, the result could be
akin to letting a child stay up late on Saturday night to watch TV - the
little devil might be too tired to cause trouble at church on Sunday :)

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:28:32 +0000

> little devil might be too tired to cause trouble at church on Sunday :)

+1 for starting list conversation before the meeting … It will be a bit crunched as many people are still working on -01 drafts till monday, then have a few days to read drafts and travel to Europe for W3C meeting then go straight from W3C meeting to IETF. I really hope there can be some good list discussion ahead of time.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:04:30 -0400

Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The MTI video codec is a pretty big questions we are asking and my
> observation about getting consensus is that people need to have been
> given the time to make their key argument or it is very hard to get
> to consensus.

   Some arguments are endless... :^(

> I realize that some people believe, or even hope, that we will not
> get to consensus on this topic

   "or even hope" wasn't necessary!

> so it is all a waste of time but the WG has made it clear it does
> want to get to have a MTI video codec. 

   Absent agreement on _which_ video codec will be MTI, that's a dead
end.

> So consider the situation we are in. One of the drafts says when
> making measurements on quality they found A was better than B while
> the another draft says B was better than A.

   Welcome to research-land!

> Several people have asked me how this could happen two different groups
> ended up with opposite measurements and they want to understand more
> about how this could have happened and which is correct. 

   Not I...

> Let me ask you guys a question, how many people do you think will be
> in the microphone line up when these two are discussed?

   Say four (more than once apiece, of course)...

> You have both seen plenty of controversial topics discussed at other
> ietf meetings. What would you recommend to people making slides for
> a slot like this - how many slides do you think they can reasonably
> get through in a time slot like this?

   Depends on the slides!

> What would your best guess be of how long we need to make these slots
> such that the chairs don't have to cut off the mic lineup? 

   45 minutes. (Myself, I'd rather you cut the line at 10 minutes.)

> I know you could take these as vaguely cynical rhetorical questions
> but I don't mean them that way. I'm straight up asking you how much
> time you think we need such that authors of the drafts can make their
> key argument and people that have questions or disagreements that
> they think are important for the WG to understand can make ask their
> question.

   Zero minutes, IMHO: these questions should be on the list.

   Some large companies with deep pockets have every reason to prefer
the H.264 licensing paragigm. Some small organizations doing open-source
have every reason to prefer the AV8 paradigm. The actual decisions will
be made by folks won't be in the room.

   Those decisions won't be driven by which codec is better: they'll
be driven by what _risks_ are taken by implementing one or the other.

   I'd like to air a mostly-serious way-out.

   Both H.264 and AV8 deserve a SHOULD implement. Some implementors
_will_ chicken out due to the risks, waiting to see what the market
demands.

   Mandatory-to-Implement isn't about which codec is best _today_ --
it's about a lowest-common-denominator for years to come. We could
perfectly well designate as Mandatory-to-Implement something so
brain-dead that nobody could be bothered to sue for patent infringement.
H.261 comes to mind -- more than 20 years old, can be implemented in
20-year-old software. Prove that you used 20-year-old software line-
for-line, and no patent troll will want to let it get to court.

   The tussle between H.264 and AV8 deserves to play out in the
marketplace, not in an IETF meeting-room. I don't believe any IETF
RFC _can_ settle this issue.

   YMMV, of course...