Subject: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:08:18 -0700

We got feedback after the audio codec discussion that folks would have
benefited from seeing the question we intended to ask before the
meeting.  In order to clarify that for this discussion, the chairs are
putting forward this draft of the question which will be asked in the
meeting (and then confirmed on the list).

"1) If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

2) If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

You may raise your hand more than once and we encourage you to do so
if you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one
over the other."

Because all 3 chairs and our responsible AD could be perceived to have
conflicts of interest here, we have asked Robert Sparks to judge the
consensus of the room, and he has kindly agreed.  If you have major
heartburn about the form of the question, please let us know.

regards,

Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:51:42 +0000

Hi Ted, chairs,

I think these are the wrong questions, as the result of such a poll is not
going to solve anything.  It's trivial to predict that there will be a
significant show of hands in favor of each question.  What does that tell
you?  Asking the questions as presented is going to be a waste of time.

The more informative questions to as would be:

1) Do you object to H.264 as MTI, regardless of its technical and IPR
merits (if any); and
2) Do you object to VP8 as MTI, regardless of its technical and IPR merits
(if any)
(both in more politically correct formulation, if you want.)

If you chairs know that there are objections to both codecs by a
significant number of people that cannot be swayed by technical or IPR
arguments, a presentation of such technical and IPR merits can be omitted,
and the WG can focus on stuff where progress is likely.

Regards,
Stephan

On 10.29.2012 11:08 , "Ted Hardie" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:17:26 -0700

Hi Stephan,

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> you?

It tells us whether there is rough consensus or not.

Asking the questions as presented is going to be a waste of time.
> (both in more politically correct formulation, if you want.)

So, this seems to be the inverse ("Can you not live with X as MTI").
Why is asking this as the inverse going to give more information?

We understand, of course, that the group has folks with strong
opinions.  They are vocal enough that no one is confused on this
point.  But we hope to understand, after a set of technical
presentations, whether there is a sufficiently large group with a
willingness to live with one or the other to create a rough consensus.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:04:43 -0400

Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> In order to clarify that for this discussion, the chairs are

   I find myself bothered (especially in a US election week) with the
suggestion that there are only two possible outcomes.

   I view both being MTI as somewhat reasonable, and neither being MTI
as a likely best-choice (assuming we don't get real consensus for
either H.264 or VP8).

   I emphasize again that RTCWEB is designing for a long future, and
that we're almost certain to find a better choice than either of these
during that future. Thus I feel no obligation to choose the better
technical choice as MTI.

   Clearly there are technical differences; and it's possible that a
significant portion of the WG participants find a compelling argument
among the technical issues. (It would be nice to learn whether that's
true.)

   It's more obvious that there are IPR-related differences; and it
seems there are folks that find compelling arguments among these.
(It would be nice to learn whether clarifying any IPR issue would
help.)

   If we in fact _do_ find near-consensus for one or the other, I'm
happy to pursue consensus on the list -- but I'm led to doubt that
will be the result of discussion during IETF-85. If we're not near
consensus after the discussion, I'd _really_ like to have some
direction to the WGCs of how to proceed. Simple-Majority-Vote is
_not_ appropriate. Flipping a coin is not appropriate.

   I'm not fool enough to think my "something-like-H.261" suggestion
is popular. But it _is_ a plausible way forward...

> consensus of the room, and he has kindly agreed.

   Clearly Robert should be empowered to ask follow-up questions if
appropriate. I won't ask him to pre-determine what these might be,
but I do hope he'll explore what might be an acceptable way forward.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:20:39 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:52 PM
> To: Ted Hardie; [email-masked]
> Cc: Cullen Jennings
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question
> 
> Hi Ted, chairs,
> 
> I think these are the wrong questions, as the result of such a poll is not going
> to solve anything.  It's trivial to predict that there will be a significant show of
> hands in favor of each question.  What does that tell you?  Asking the
> questions as presented is going to be a waste of time.
> 
> 1) Do you object to H.264 as MTI, regardless of its technical and IPR merits (if
> any); and
> 2) Do you object to VP8 as MTI, regardless of its technical and IPR merits (if
> any) (both in more politically correct formulation, if you want.)
>

Agree. These are the questions I suggested originally. If the vast majority of the people in the room raise their hands for *either one* of these, then we should spend the time on other topics instead.

If one gets a significantly larger number than we can go on to whether or not we might actually get consensus.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:23:25 +0000

> Behalf Of Ted Hardie

It isn't exactly the inverse. CANNOT is not the opposite of WOULD.

> 
> We understand, of course, that the group has folks with strong opinions.
> They are vocal enough that no one is confused on this point.  But we hope to
> understand, after a set of technical presentations, whether there is a
> sufficiently large group with a willingness to live with one or the other to
> create a rough consensus.

I hope to avoid the set of technical presentations altogether if spending time on them is unlikely to change anyone's mind.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:33:55 -0700

> suggestion that there are only two possible outcomes.

These are the only two proposals for which we have drafts, which was
noted before as a step along the path for this decision.  We have
previously established a consensus to have a mandatory-to-implement in
order to avoid negotiation failure.

> _not_ appropriate. Flipping a coin is not appropriate.

We will discuss next steps after the result, whatever the result may
be.  Unless there is a long mic line advocating flipping a coin, I do
not see it as a likely next step.

> but I do hope he'll explore what might be an acceptable way forward.

Follow-up questions are, of course, a possibility, and we will
obviously confirm anything on the list.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:40:15 +0100

Hi Ted,

Maybe I am completely wrong, but my understanding about the current 
situation is that there are two groups of people:

Group A: H264 folks, that want to have H264 as MTI (mainly for 
compatibility with current deployed base) but won't oppose to have VP8 
MTI in addition.
Group B: VP8 folks, that want to have VP8 as MTI but will oppose H264 to 
be also MTI.

So in the first sets of questions, A would raise the hands for both 1 
and 2, and B only for 2, which would be considered as a consensus to go 
for VP8.

In the second set of questions, A would not raise hands in neither 1 nor 
2, and B would only rise hands for 1, which would be considered as a 
consensus to go for VP8.

So at the end, both sets of question seems biased toward VP8 supporters.

Best regards
Sergio

---

From: Chenxin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:14:30 +0000

+1 
option 3 should be added to the choice : support both H.264 and VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec.

Best Regards,
     Xin 

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Sergio Garcia Murillo
>Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:40 AM
>To: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:12:42 +0000

Hi,

Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>Group A: H264 folks, that want to have H264 as MTI (mainly for compatibility
>with current deployed base) but won't oppose to have VP8 MTI in addition.
>Group B: VP8 folks, that want to have VP8 as MTI but will oppose H264 to be
>also MTI.
>

I know that there are definitely people also in:
Group C: H264 folks that want to have H264 as MTI and will oppose VP8 as MTI.

Otherwise the issue would be much easier.

Markus

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:42:30 +0000

Hi,

I prefer Stephan's formulation of the questions. To me the main issue does not seem to be the amount of people favoring a particular codec but objecting one. In case both H.264 and VP8 will get a large number of objections, as I suspect, I think it is worhwhile also to ask once more something like:

* Raise your hand if you think the WG must decide on at least one MTI video codec (at this time)
* Raise your hand if you think the WG should give up on MTI video codec (for now) and focus on making progress in other areas  

Markus 

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
>Of ext Stephan Wenger
>Sent: 29 October, 2012 20:52
>If you chairs know that there are objections to both codecs by a significant
>number of people that cannot be swayed by technical or IPR arguments, a
>presentation of such technical and IPR merits can be omitted, and the WG can
>focus on stuff where progress is likely.
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
>
>>You may raise your hand more than once and we encourage you to do so if
>>you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one over
>>the other."
>>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:54:30 +0100

So lets say we got agreement on something qualified with "regardless of its technical and IPR merits (if any)", I can't see how that helps us. We need to get agreement without that sort of qualification. 

Can folks walk me through how this questions is better?

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:30:48 +0000

Cullen Jennings:
> 
> So lets say we got agreement on something qualified with "regardless of its
> technical and IPR merits (if any)", I can't see how that helps us. We need to
> get agreement without that sort of qualification.
> 

It doesn't hardly matter *why*... my point of a qualification was covered in my original questions:

Raise your hand if you want only H.264 and no amount of presentation time will change that to VP8
	
Raise your hand if you want only VP8 and no amount of presentation time will change that to H.264

If the sum of those hands is the majority, we have better ways to use our time than presenting to people who won't change their mind.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:08:41 +0000

> * Raise your hand if you think the WG should give up on MTI video codec (for now) and focus on making progress in other areas  

Agree this is critical but we took that previously and there was consensus for a MTI video codec.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:51:46 +0000

Hi,

Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:
>> * Raise your hand if you think the WG should give up on MTI video codec
>(for now) and focus on making progress in other areas
>

True. I would just note that if I recall correctly that took place 15 months ago, which is a long time. Not sure if it has been refreshed afterwards. 

Markus

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:14:02 -0700

> If the sum of those hands is the majority, we have better ways to use our time than presenting to people who won't change their mind.

The problem in determining that is the baseline.  If we have 10 people
object to each in a room full at 150, it looks like things are
actually fine for picking either.  This is not true, however, if the
total number of folks who would have raised their hand in support of
anything was 30.  By asking the positive question, we get a better
shot at understanding what the baseline support is, which is critical.

I also note that working in an SDO that requires consensus (even rough
consensus) frequently requires compromise.  There are lots of aspects
of our work that cause us to put the goal of advancing the
interoperable standard over advancing our own technical preferences.
The form of your question would cause us to downplay both that need
and the ability of our participants to take that step if needed.   I
certainly hope that each of our participants is considering that as
they way their answers.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:56:24 +1030

> It doesn't hardly matter *why*... my point of a qualification was covered in

It really does matter *why*.  Probably even more so than what.

> Raise your hand if you want only VP8 and no amount of presentation time will

Giving weight to an objection that isn't required to come with any sort of
justification whatsoever is not a good method of technical decision-making.

Presupposing that objections simply attached to either of those questions
should carry equal weight and/or be of equal merit would also seem to lack
both engineering and statistical rigour.

> If the sum of those hands is the majority, we have better ways to use our
> time than presenting to people who won't change their mind.

If the sum of those hands is a majority, we should have used our time to
formulate more discriminating questions (and consensus answers) about the
problem space.

I agree that posing a question with one in a nonillion chance of arriving
at a coherent answer is not a good use of time.  From the discussion so
far though, there does seem to be a reasonable amount of consensus about
what the dilemmas of either choice are - so perhaps we should summarise
that and make some analysis of the merits and problems that we *do* all
seem to be in basic agreement about.

We might be surprised at how easily an actual, rational, answer could
become obviously apparent from that once we peel back the skin of
simplistic Do Not Want objections.

  Cheers,
  Ron

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:50:02 +0100

On 30 October 2012 15:14, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> actually fine for picking either.

Not as much so if the 10 comprise the browser vendors.  (Yes, we're
all individuals...)

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:12:05 +0000

Hi, please see inline.

On 10.30.2012 06:51 , "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> * Raise your hand if you think the WG must decide on at least one MTI
>>>video
>>codec (at this time)
>>Agree this is critical but we took that previously and there was
>>consensus for a
>>MTI video codec.
>>
>
>True. I would just note that if I recall correctly that took place 15
>months ago, which is a long time. Not sure if it has been refreshed
>afterwards. 

Yes.  Even more importantly, arguments were exchanged for 15 months.
Individuals had 15 months time to formulate their positions.  More
importantly for me (albeit moderately politically incorrect), the
employers of those individual also have had 15 months time to formulate
their positions, and advise their employees accordingly.  I would hope we
all understand that both individual positions and guidance are in most
cases "hard".  No half hour presentation will swing those positions.

Stephan

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:33:40 -0500

On 10/29/12 16:04, Oct 29, John Leslie wrote:
> as a likely best-choice

That's an interesting set of assertions. I, for one, cannot see how you 
reached either conclusion.

Selecting "both" solves none of the problems that have been raised to 
date. It takes on the entire union of disadvantages that have been 
raised about the candidate codecs, while providing the benefits of neither.

Selecting "neither" is intentionally aiming the ship for the rocks: we 
guarantee failure. If we publish a specification to which two 
implementations can comply but cannot subsequently inter-operate, then 
the entire point of standardization is defeated.

/a

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:42:32 -0500

On 10/30/12 07:30, Oct 30, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> my point of a qualification was covered in my original questions:
>

*If* those questions were asked (and I like Ted's formulation better), 
*and* the sum of the hands comprised the majority, then I would agree 
that we have better ways to use our time than presenting technical 
issues to the entire WG. In my opinion, foremost among those would be 
selecting which of the mechanisms in section 4 of RFC 3929 the WG thinks 
is most applicable.

/a

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:10 +0000

Hi Adam,

>the entire point of standardization is defeated.

I disagree.  It just takes a commercial decision making process out of the
hands of IETF geeks and into the hands of (hopefully) competent business
people.  Given the money and risk involved, that is sensible.

SDOs can do wonderful things, but sorting out this dispute is not one of
them.

Stephan

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:13:28 +1030

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:41:10AM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> people.

Didn't this group form precisely because the hopefully competent business
people have so far only produced a diverse number of unacceptable solutions
and people *really* wanted something better than that?

The choice of MTI codec here isn't a commercial decision, it's a technical
one.  If we make the right choice, we will ensure the broadest number of
implementors have the option to use it, and the broadest number of
implementations will be interoperable.

There are probably perfectly good "commercial decision making processes"
which might arrive at the conclusion that this is not in their best
interest and is something that should be opposed and stalled at every
step of the way.  That is their right.  But it's not the charter of this
group ...

I think the concerns Adam voiced are both real and outcomes to be avoided.

 Ron

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:26 +0000

> Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:43 AM
>
> people have so far only produced a diverse number of unacceptable
> solutions and people *really* wanted something better than that?

No, I don't believe that was the motivation for forming the RTCWEB working group.
 
> The choice of MTI codec here isn't a commercial decision, it's a technical one.
> If we make the right choice, we will ensure the broadest number of

No, we won't. No matter what this WG decides, people who are not in the room will ultimately make the decision as to what business model they wish to pursue and what business risks they are willing to take... and thus whether or not their implementation will interoperate with others.
 	
Matthew Kaufman

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:36:26 +0200

Hi,
Just to be precise, if we do not chose a common video codec the
interoperability point will be an audio call
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: 31 October, 2012 12:34 AM
To: John Leslie
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question

On 10/29/12 16:04, Oct 29, John Leslie wrote:
>     I view both being MTI as somewhat reasonable, and neither being 
> MTI as a likely best-choice

Selecting "both" solves none of the problems that have been raised to date.
It takes on the entire union of disadvantages that have been raised about
the candidate codecs, while providing the benefits of neither.

Selecting "neither" is intentionally aiming the ship for the rocks: we
guarantee failure. If we publish a specification to which two
implementations can comply but cannot subsequently inter-operate, then the
entire point of standardization is defeated.

/a

---

From: Lorenzo Miniero <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:56:26 +0100

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:36:26 +0200

> interoperability point will be an audio call

Not if we pick an "older" video codec as a MTI one as we did for G.711 (well maybe not *that* old).

L.

-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:23:19 +0100

> people.  Given the money and risk involved, that is sensible.
Ending up with a situation where users have to find out which browser to
use in order to interoperate with one specific WebRTC application is a big failure.

Like in the days of web pages saying "Sorry, this web page only supports on Huckzilla Explorer v5."

I agree with Adam, that would defeat the point of standardization. We have
that mess with SIP SIMPLE - there are many implementations that fail to
interoperate, thus SIP SIMPLE is not taking off outside of walled gardens.

We want interoperability, we don't want more plugins or having to select
the right web browser to reach your application.

/O

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:44:49 +1030

> No, I don't believe that was the motivation for forming the RTCWEB working group.

 "Description of Working Group:

  There are a number of proprietary implementations that provide direct
  interactive rich communication using audio, video, collaboration,
  games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers. These are not
  interoperable, as they require non-standard extensions or plugins to
  work.  There is a desire to standardize the basis for such
  communication so that interoperable communication can be established
  between any compatible browsers.  ..."

You can read the rest here: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charters

Which bit of that do you not believe, or think is unclear?

> No, we won't. No matter what this WG decides, people who are not in the room
> will ultimately make the decision as to what business model they wish to
> pursue and what business risks they are willing to take... and thus whether
> or not their implementation will interoperate with others.

And that's fine, but totally irrelevant to the technical decisions of the
working group.  If those people want their opinions and technical arguments
to be taken into account, then hiding in another room might not be the best
strategy they could employ to air them.

It would certainly be odd to abandon the charter because of rumours that
people not here didn't want interoperability with others.  Wouldn't it?

We can't stop them from persisting with being part of the problem that the
group was chartered to solve.  But we likewise shouldn't let them stop us
from solving it in the best and most broadly accessible way possible anyhow.

There are always going to be business models that feel threatened by an
open standard that can be freely implemented by anyone.  That doesn't
mean that people don't want and need them, or that we shouldn't make them
and collaborate to make them the best they can be.

  Colloidially,
  Ron

---

From: David Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:08:31 +0100

On Oct 31, 2012, at 5:43 , Ron <[email-masked]> wrote:

> one.  

Not at all;  there are any number of codecs which would be adequate as the catch-all 'fallback' codec.  The willingness, or ability, to license, and implement, are key -- commercial -- questions, and the essence of the debate. 

> implementations will be interoperable.

Our choice is only part of the solution; it has to be viable and actually implemented.  I would hazard to guess that what most will implement is a choice made almost entirely indpendently of any MTI tag in the spec.

> I think the concerns Adam voiced are both real and outcomes to be avoided.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:27:16 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Matthew Kaufman
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:26 AM
To: Ron; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question

> Didn't this group form precisely because the hopefully competent 
> business people have so far only produced a diverse number of 
> unacceptable solutions and people *really* wanted something better than
that?

No, I don't believe that was the motivation for forming the RTCWEB working
group.
 
one.

No, we won't. No matter what this WG decides, people who are not in the room
will ultimately make the decision as to what business model they wish to
pursue and what business risks they are willing to take... and thus whether
or not their implementation will interoperate with others.
[RS> ] 
[RS> ] <sigh>  This is true of any technical/engineering specification. So
what's your point. This particular line of objection is fundamentally
irrelevant to the topic at hand. Adam is correct. Selecting "whatever you
want to do" is not a option. 

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:21:31 -0700

> No, we won't. No matter what this WG decides, people who are not in the room will ultimately make the decision as to what business model they wish to pursue and what business risks they are willing…

Perhaps one way to recast this would be that the working group's
decision will affect whether or not an implementation which decides
not to interoperate can claim to support WebRTC or not.  That may have
an impact on the business decision; it may not.  As you say, there are
other forces.  But I believe it is clear that if the working group
decides to abandon the effort to achieve interoperability that the
chances of the market producing it go down, not up.

Speaking personally, neither as chair nor as company representative,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:18:54 +0100

> (both in more politically correct formulation, if you want.)

Stephan,

I would not raise my hand on any of these questions, but would 
definitely protest a decision made based on the outcome of that question.

All my objections to H.264 as MTI are based on its technical and IPR merits.

If those change, my opinion may change.

However, I believe that my opinion is based enough in facts that it's 
unlikely that I'll be swayed by a presentation given at the IETF; 
reading the drafts of the H.264 proponents certainly did not change it.

---

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:25:15 +0000

Harald Alvestrand:
>
> However, I believe that my opinion is based enough in facts that it's unlikely
> that I'll be swayed by a presentation given at the IETF; reading the drafts of
> the H.264 proponents certainly did not change it.
>

Perfect. If everyone can read the drafts ahead of time and make up their mind then we can spend valuable face-to-face time on the existing issues plus the three (or more) new items that are coming out of W3C this week instead of on the predetermined codec discussion.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:58:31 -0400

Stephan,

Maybe I am dense, but what arguments remain after you remove "technical" 
and "IPR"?

Presumably what is left is "business". But don't business considerations 
in this case devolve to either technical or IPR ones? (E.g. "I favor X 
because I have a license for it and some potential competitors do not" 
is ultimately an IPR question.)

	Thanks,
	Paul