Subject: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:13:09 -0700

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>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:25:29 -0800

You didn't ask for support but: +1

> On Jan 27, 2014, at 21:13, Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: "Chenxin (Xin)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:23:39 +0000

+1

One thing could be decided by the poll is that the MTI video codec candidates are only { H.264, VP8}. Will eliminate many discussions....

Best Regards,
     Xin 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:13 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
>
>
>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.
>

---

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:30:37 +0000

+1

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:57:47 +0000

+1.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: 28. tammikuuta 2014 7:13
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

Dear WG,

Thank you,

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:51:19 +0100

+1

Simon

Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
>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.
>
>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.  
>
>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, 
>

---

From: Victor Pascual Avila <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:52:46 +0100

+1

-Victor

---

From: Roman Shpount <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:58:06 -0500

+1 and all the votes I can cast!

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:15:00 -0600

I fully support tabling this discussion.

Mary.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:17:33 +0100

Just to be 100% sure:

This is the US version of "table" (put aside), not the UK version of
"table" (start working on), right?
This is one of the words I try avoid using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)

Apart from that, +1 on both the decision to postpone and the conclusion
that there doesn't seem to be a basis for forming a consensus on any
proposal but 1, 2, 3 and 4.

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:14:46 -0800

> This is one of the words I try avoid using.
We mean "put aside".  Sorry for any lack of clarity; we thought the
"until  about six weeks before IETF 91"
eliminated the confusion, but probably should have just said "put aside.".

Ted

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:22:03 -0800

On 1/27/14, 9:13 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> the chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an
> MTI is required for the WebRTC ecology to develop.

IMHO the state of video codec development needs to evolve before the WG 
can make a decision regarding an MTI video codec.

> 29, 2014 please let us know by February 4.

I have concerns that September 2014 is too soon.

It was relatively easy for the WG to choose two MTI audio codecs because 
Opus was a clear winner among modern codecs (and because we had an 
obvious fallback). We have no such codec in the video space. My 
suggestion is to wait until we have such a codec (and, in parallel 
within some other WG or initiative, push hard to make that happen), 
rather than continue the endless and fruitless wrangling over the 
current options.

Peter

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:21:56 -0800

> I have concerns that September 2014 is too soon.

I think that perhaps you would be well served by raising that
objection come September.  In the meantime, enjoy the respite.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:32:57 -0800

> objection come September.  In the meantime, enjoy the respite.

Indeed! The quiet is wonderful. :-)

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:17:25 -0800

In favor of putting it aside - but agree with Peter that the hiatus should be considerably longer. 

> On Jan 28, 2014, at 8:22, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> It was relatively easy for the WG to choose two MTI audio codecs because Opus was a clear winner among modern codecs (and because we had an obvious fallback). We have no such codec in the video space. My suggestion is to wait until we have such a codec (and, in parallel within some other WG or initiative, push hard to make that happen), rather than continue the endless and fruitless wrangling over the current options.
> 
> Peter

---

From: OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:56:35 +0000

+1

        Òscar

On 28/01/14 6.13, "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>participants in the straw poll.  Given that, we are no closer to being
>able to choose between them at this time.
>
>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.
>

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

---

From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:05:48 -0500

+1

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:56 AM, OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
> situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:

-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -

---

From: Hervé W. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:05:37 +0100

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014, Chenxin (Xin) <[email-masked]>
wrote:
> +1
>
> One thing could be decided by the poll is that the MTI video codec
candidates are only { H.264, VP8}. Will eliminate many discussions....
>>chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an MTI is
required for
>>support for selecting both.  Each has similar numbers of supporting
positions
>>the straw poll.  Given that, we are no closer to being able to choose
between

Unless something comes out of MPEG or MPEG LA or the VP8 Nokia
claims/lawsuits
are resolved, I think it's unlikely the IPR related objections will be
lifted.

H.261 did not get the numbrrs, but also got some objections that seemed of
a technical nature,
but were either relying on other peoples opinions or were expressions of
doubt on performance.
(Not all objections were like that, but some were.)
If the stalemate continues into September, I suggest those objectors test
encoder
implementations themselves and/or view the already produced samples and
form their own opinions.

An option that didn't make it to the straw poll: Reconsider Mpeg-1 video
(first release 1993)
 related message:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09794.html
+ demonstrably better quality/bitrate than H.261 and MJPEG
+ arbitrary resolutions unlike H.261
+ lawsuits and patents concerning H.262/MPEG-2 Video (first release
1995/1996) don't necessarily relate to MPEG-1 implementations;
* 3 years in between releases
* patents on 20xx tech are unlikely to apply to 1993 implementations

As far as I know, the H.261 samples were largely produced without any data
on the target devices.
When the stalemate continues, can we get some data on those? Available
bitrate, resolution, CPU

+1

>>When we return to the discussion, the working group chairs currently
expect to
>>If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September 29,
2014
>>please let us know by February 4.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>

- Hervé