IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBBA1AC499 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:30:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zts8uSr1YFol for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.215.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3FF1A1F4C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip68-100-74-215.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.215]:58877 helo=[192.168.15.104]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1Vm1fz-0004JR-6B; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:30:40 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_393C27A9-8B5E-41F9-AF39-F5ABB72E4EB1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzwf_1Kg0vvyKnC9yjsRSunvaRHrYEnPrfLdOsdFij4a7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:37 -0500
Message-Id: <5CBE09E5-B81F-4D9F-B749-99081F049EF6@standardstrack.com>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAKHUCzxjwMXzy6=9WdRPRRCunKsLm9JFuo6JavMtEC7Tbov8TQ@mail.gmail.com> <DDE4643D-62CD-4B12-B1BF-176A5AA4CED9@standardstrack.com> <CAKHUCzwf_1Kg0vvyKnC9yjsRSunvaRHrYEnPrfLdOsdFij4a7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cridland Dave <dave@cridland.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:30:52 -0000

Interestingly, this is precisely the figure I had in my head (one year), but I was not as bold as you to say it out loud. Now that you have said it, I’ll say it too.

Wait a year and see if the industry is not closer to consensus. 

On Nov 28, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> As someone merely following the debate rather than with a stake (or oar) in it, that's my personal opinion too. I suspect a de-facto codec selection will emerge within a year, and this will occur whether or not the IETF mandates any particular option as de jure.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email