Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:42:45 +0000

Several folks have objected to a vote. Is it worthwhile to have an
alternative that expresses this?

³Voting MUST NOT be used to decide MTI video codec(s).²

I realize it is whacky to ask someone to vote to express an objection to
voting. But otherwise, how will the chairs/ADs be able to reconcile the
objections with the vote results? I¹ve only seen a handful of voting
objections, and only several dozen total voices expressing various
opinions, while the rooms seemed packed with hundreds and the list has
over a thousand subs. I have no idea where rough consensus lies in the
larger community, nor how significant voting objections may be in that
larger community. But that seems like useful, perhaps essential,
information to know how to interpret the results. For example, if 40%
objected to voting (as a first choice), that would immediately send a red
flag no matter what result was ultimately selected via instant runoff.
Conversely, if only 1% objected to voting, that may be less of a concern.
Of course, a small minority of objectors may argue that is the essence of
their objection to voting in the first place.

I also support the option of not ranking any equally undesired
alternatives. Especially for those who choose only the alternative above.

Mo

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:05:11 -0500

Sounds to me like an issue that should be "voted on" before the actual vote.

If voting proceeds, I am in favor of disqualifying any ballot that omits 
a ranking for a voting option. The entire point of this process is to 
look for a compromise, not to let people vote for their favorite option 
and nothing else. It is highly unlikely that anyone's 1st choice will 
end up winning.

Gili

On 27/11/2013 4:42 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:31:59 +0100

On 27.11.13, 22:42, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> voting.

It is indeed quite ironic.

> But otherwise, how will the chairs/ADs be able to reconcile the
> objections with the vote results?

The same way we generally declare consensus or lack thereof. A vote 
would be exactly as nonsensical here as for any other IETF decision.

> I¹ve only seen a handful of voting objections,

I haven't seen any arguments against those objections. Just people 
worried that if a vote does eventually happen their favorite option 
might not be on the list.

I haven't seen anyone explaining how any possible constituency would be 
defended, how non-rights would be determined, or why it is IETFs 
business at all to resolve questions after clearly proving it couldn't.

> and only several dozen total voices expressing various
> larger community,

You seem to assume that rough consensus necessarily lies somewhere. It 
doesn't. Sometimes people agree to disagree.

> nor how significant voting objections may be in that
> objected to voting (as a first choice),

What if 30% objected to voting as a third choice?

> that would immediately send a red

Or it may be game theory in action. It's an entirely new land where the 
IETF has not ventured before. Doing so now cannot work! A vote in the 
IETF is only a reason to contest the results forever and discredit the 
work of this group.

If we can't reach consensus then let's call it a day and leave another 
body do the call if they feel comfortable with it.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:37:02 -0500

> might not be on the list.

I've heard objections along the lines of "IETF does not vote. We reach 
consensus by evaluating the technical merits of each argument and choose 
the one with the least number of objections".

My counter-argument is that this isn't a technical question (we've 
reached consensus that both VP8 and H.264 are "good enough" from a 
technical point of view). This is a legal and political question. You 
can resolve the legal question by deferring to legal experts and 
political question by voting. That's how we ended up where we are today.

> I haven't seen anyone explaining how any possible constituency would 
> be defended 

That is a legitimate concern, but I believe that with additional 
discussion we'll be able to reach a consensus on it.

> doesn't. Sometimes people agree to disagree.

Anyone who feels this way should feel free to vote for "No MTI".

> What if 30% objected to voting as a third choice?

I suspect that if a substantial number of people vote for "No MTI" then 
it would warrant further investigation. I can't comment on what the 
actual threshold should be.

> Or it may be game theory in action. It's an entirely new land where 
> the IETF has not ventured before. Doing so now cannot work! A vote in 
> the IETF is only a reason to contest the results forever and discredit 
> the work of this group.

I don't agree. Giving up on MTI because of we have multiple good options 
and a very polarized community would be like throwing out the baby with 
the bathwater.

People see a lot of arguing on the mailing list and mistake it for a 
lack of consensus. Where they see a lack of consensus, I see a good 
evaluation process that has fleshed out the technical and legal issues 
of each codec. My hope is that this will allow the community to make an 
informed decision.

Gili

---

From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 04:33:36 +0000

On 11/27/13, 6:31 PM, Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> "Voting MUST NOT be used to decide MTI video codec(s).²
>> I realize it is whacky to ask someone to vote to express an objection
>> to voting.
And quite idiotic. Since we will have a normal consensus call starting
soon to accept or reject this alternative process, which I completely
overlooked. Sorry for the stupid suggestion.

---

From: "Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:44:03 +0000

+1 to Emil's comments seems some people have forgotten that the first phase of this process is a consensus call on whether to go ahead with voting or not.

I am still hoping it won't come to a vote which is unknown territory for the IETF and unlikely to provide any good result.

Andy

On 27 Nov 2013, at 23:32, "Emil Ivov" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The same way we generally declare consensus or lack thereof. A vote would be exactly as nonsensical here as for any other IETF decision.
> 
> I haven't seen any arguments against those objections. Just people worried that if a vote does eventually happen their favorite option might not be on the list.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone explaining how any possible constituency would be defended, how non-rights would be determined, or why it is IETFs business at all to resolve questions after clearly proving it couldn't.
> 
> You seem to assume that rough consensus necessarily lies somewhere. It doesn't. Sometimes people agree to disagree.
> 
> Or it may be game theory in action. It's an entirely new land where the IETF has not ventured before. Doing so now cannot work! A vote in the IETF is only a reason to contest the results forever and discredit the work of this group.
> 
> If we can't reach consensus then let's call it a day and leave another body do the call if they feel comfortable with it.
> 
> Emil
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://jitsi.org
>

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:03:36 +0100

> the one with the least number of objections".

Note that these are not just a matter of ideology there are very 
practical reasons why voting can't be properly implemented here.

More on that below.

> My counter-argument is that this isn't a technical question

Then there is NO reason for it to be answered by the IETF.

> (we've
> technical point of view). This is a legal and political question.

Exactly the kind of questions that the IETF does NOT handle.

> discussion we'll be able to reach a consensus on it.

No we won't. We can't. Determining constituency is a very laborious 
process that should have been completed while setting up the body that 
will be taking the decision. To be more specific, it should in the very 
least be in our charter.

It has to be clear in advance that voting is a possible outcome of all 
discussions. It has to be clear who will be allowed to vote and, just as 
importantly, who won't be. A good practice would be to then contact 
potentially interested parties and inform them of the process and voting 
conditions so that they can choose to get involved and make sure they 
satisfy those conditions.

The rules that are currently being presented are EXPLICITLY PREVENTING 
people from getting involved in the process and becoming a part of the 
vote from now on. This is such a glaring deficiency that I am amazed we 
are still discussing the option.

The rules that have been presented basically sound like: "here are the 
people that we think will produce the result we are looking for"

Now, I would never assume that our chairs would attempt to game a 
process that they are proposing to us. I am simply convinced the 
pressure of choosing an MTI has made them overlook the problems.

> Anyone who feels this way should feel free to vote for "No MTI".

Voting "No MTI" is a very different position than not agreeing with a vote.

> actual threshold should be.

No one could. Not here.

> and a very polarized community would be like throwing out the baby with

I don't necessarily agree with that but if people think an MTI is of 
utmost importance and a vote is the only way to get it, they can then 
simply achieve that in any of the multiple bodies that allow for this 
(e.g. W3C) or simply establish a new one that will.

Cheers,
Emil

--
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:40:54 -0800

> > This is a legal and political question.
> 
 
[BA] Indeed.  Legal questions are handled in the courts, political questions are handled within legislatures/parliaments (or in the case of a monarchy/dictatorship by the dictator or monarch).  Last time I looked, the IETF was neither a court nor a legislative body (nor within the jurisdiction of a specific monarch or dictator). 
 
So I fail to see how the outcome of this proposed vote could be expected to convince someone who is concerned about legal/IPR issues that their concerns have been addressed.  Is legal counsel expected to view the outcome and say "I had concerns relating to the IPR/licensing risks of <insert codec here> but now that the IETF RTCWEB WG has concluded its voting process, I realize that my concerns were merely the invention of an over-active legal mind!" 

> The rules that have been presented basically sound like: "here are the people that we think will produce the result we are looking for"
 
[BA] I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that such a thing could be going on here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:48:46 -0500

> Voting "No MTI" is a very different position than not agreeing with a 

It is my understanding that you are advocating that IETF abandon its 
attempt to mandate an MTI codec. How is this any different (on a 
practical level) than voting "No MTI"?

I'd rather settle on the 3rd-best codec than no MTI at all. Whether we 
reach a compromise through voting or alternative approaches such as the 
one brought up by Gaëlle doesn't really concern me.

Gili

---

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:06:05 +1100

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Note that these are not just a matter of ideology there are very practical
> reasons why voting can't be properly implemented here.
>
> More on that below.
>

Standards are created such that system are able to interoperate with
each other. Deciding to avoid the decision for an MTI and thus
creating non-interoperable rtcweb systems is giving up on
standardising interoperability. IMO that is very much a technical
question.

What if we standardised power plugs and sockets and couldn't agree on
the shape of the plug and socket, so left it for anyone to do what
they liked. I'd call that a failed standardisation. It's the same
here: if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL

Regards,
Silvia.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:47 -0800

> if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be

[BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video, the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today, millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:26:14 -0500

On 28/11/2013 5:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that 
> interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video, 
> the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today, 
> millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.
>

That's because servers are able to offer the same pre-recorded video in 
multiple formats. The same is not true for WebRTC where:

  * There might not be a server.
  * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.

GIli

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:44:15 +0100

>   * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.

The point is that solutions emerge.

SIP has been in exactly the same situation for a few years now and, last 
I checked, it was enjoying quite the popularity.

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:05:48 -0800

>Exactly the kind of questions that the IETF does NOT handle.

In my humble opinion it does.

>It has to be clear in advance that voting is a possible outcome of 
>all discussions. It has to be clear who will be allowed to vote and, 
>just as importantly, who won't be. A good practice would be to then 
>contact potentially interested parties and inform them of the 
>process and voting conditions so that they can choose to get 
>involved and make sure they satisfy those conditions.

There are some details in the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html 
about the eligibility rules.  I think that I may be eligible but I am not sure.

>The rules that are currently being presented are EXPLICITLY 
>PREVENTING people from getting involved in the process and becoming 
>a part of the vote from now on. This is such a glaring deficiency 
>that I am amazed we are still discussing the option.

It is to prevent breaking the rules to gain unfair advantage. :-)

>The rules that have been presented basically sound like: "here are 
>the people that we think will produce the result we are looking for"

I have not looked into the details to take a guess about whether it 
is possible to predict the outcome.

Several decision-making alternatives have been put before this 
working group.  It seems that there has been difficulty getting 
people to agree on how to find a way to agree.  There isn't much an 
Area Director or a Working Group can do in those circumstances.

At 13:40 28-11-2013, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>So I fail to see how the outcome of this proposed vote could be 
>expected to convince someone who is concerned about legal/IPR issues 
>that their concerns have been addressed.  Is legal counsel expected 
>to view the outcome and say "I had concerns relating to the 
>IPR/licensing risks of <insert codec here> but now that the IETF 
>RTCWEB WG has concluded its voting process, I realize that my 
>concerns were merely the invention of an over-active legal mind!"

I would not conclude that there isn't any IPR issue based on the 
conclusion of the decision process.  I am not keen about voting as it 
can be a problem in future.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

This is a moment of humor at in that video. :-)

>standardising interoperability. IMO that is very much a technical

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:24:49 -0500

On 28/11/2013 5:44 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> SIP has been in exactly the same situation for a few years now and, 
> last I checked, it was enjoying quite the popularity

Video is a lot more expensive to transcode than audio. Correct me if I'm 
wrong, but isn't SIP predominantly used to carry audio?

Gili