IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 30 November 2013 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 9DB641AE240 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:09:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 gRDTU6cBY-au for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9C41AD8EF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.211.51.212] (rbiguest.jcresorts.com [206.170.126.120] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAUF9aIj000486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:09:40 -0800
Message-ID: <5299FF7D.90701@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:08:45 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwgF-NL=LxaAjkVPVVO6a1oevLvvNqYxn6ug5w-zxdez3Q@mail.gmail.com> <D9F35A16-58D8-4F7F-A640-3E9B0A341BD8@iii.ca> <CA355BB7-8287-41EB-A59F-2955EE5D4C07@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA355BB7-8287-41EB-A59F-2955EE5D4C07@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:09:43 -0000

On 11/28/2013 7:27 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> In a similar vein, can anyone point out what we get if the IETF were to agree on a single MTI video codec for WebRTC?
> What is the upside to making this herculean effort?


basic interoperability, without prior agreement.

but perhaps you are asking a deeper question?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email