Subject: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt

From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:05 -0700

Harald Alvestrand [[email-masked]]*:*

>At the moment, if we want open, good and  developed in cooperation with a standards body, it seems that we only 
get 2 out of 3. At most.

For video, H.264 is available in open source implementations and the 
specification is available to read by all, the quality is more than good 
enough, and it was developed in cooperation with a recognized standards 
body.

I think you're looking for a word other than "open" to explain what you 
might not like about it... but the alternative you've proposed meets 
even fewer of these, and I would claim that the last is more important 
than the missing one you're thinking of.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:27:50 +1030

Hi Matthew,

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:26:05AM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >At the moment, if we want open, good and  developed in cooperation
> >with a standards body, it seems that we only
> get 2 out of 3. At most.
> 
> specification is available to read by all, the quality is more than
> good enough, and it was developed in cooperation with a recognized
> standards body.
> 
> I think you're looking for a word other than "open" to explain what
> you might not like about it... but the alternative you've proposed
> meets even fewer of these, and I would claim that the last is more
> important than the missing one you're thinking of.

I'm not sure which dictionary you're taking your definition of "open"
from here, but I can't seem to find one that constrains it to just the
closed sophisticated meanings that you seem to want to dilute it to.
Do you have a reference or suggested alternative word that you'd like
to share with us?

"Requires me to apply for a licence, without which I have no rights"
is pretty much the poster child for the exact opposite of open ...

"Can peep through the window at what I'm missing without one" is not
an acceptable or even approximate substitute by any measure.

It seems pretty clear to me that Open and Good, as judged by this group,
are the only two actual relevant constraints here.  The third is about
as arbitrary as saying "eligible codecs must have a V in their name"
in its current effect on limiting the scope of our choices.

Having the imprimatur of a closed shop organisation is quite irrelevant
to meeting the real demands of developers and end users.  Suggesting it
is somehow essential seems like the sort of conceit that led people to
gather around a more open organisation to look for alternative solutions
in the first place.

Yes, it would have been wonderful if RFC 6386 had been Standards Track
instead of Informational, and if we'd had a working group to oversee
that several years ago.  But that doesn't make it any less of an existing
technology, or any less worthy of consideration for its applicability to
the goals of this group.

We should judge it on technical merits, not its political endorsements.
An inability to deploy something, except at the whim of a private group
of stake-holders, is a pretty insurmountable technical barrier.  That
some other standards body might endorse or even encourage that practice
probably only discounts the value of their approval to us even further.

If the owners of H.264 aren't prepared to remove that barrier to at least
the same extent that the owners of VP8 have, then I don't know why we are
wasting our time still pretending H.264 is even an option here.  If they
are serious about being a viable candidate, then they know what they need
to do and have had plenty of time to do it.

Just redefining the word "open" isn't the solution we're looking for.

 Openly,
 Ron