IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> Mon, 02 December 2013 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cos@mip.polyamory.org>
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 4F95D1ADFBE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:10:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 wDJMdGBd7iEM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mip.polyamory.org (mip.polyamory.org [199.201.145.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011BC1ADFB8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mip.polyamory.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 4AF5210760; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:10:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:10:22 -0500
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
To: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Message-ID: <20131202231022.GJ578@mip.aaaaa.org>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAKHUCzxjwMXzy6=9WdRPRRCunKsLm9JFuo6JavMtEC7Tbov8TQ@mail.gmail.com> <DDE4643D-62CD-4B12-B1BF-176A5AA4CED9@standardstrack.com> <52978257.1090103@gmail.com> <CAHBU6ivvMkQy-CNYcCaUwY211ANta8Sou+Gte3KkseRpyvRZJA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU0-SMTP2528701C9F2545FCE220744B1EE0@phx.gbl> <205438ef-0fb4-48c5-9f56-5af9ef7f13ca@email.android.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <205438ef-0fb4-48c5-9f56-5af9ef7f13ca@email.android.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
Cc: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 23:10:29 -0000

Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to reach rough consensus on MTI of one from
> (H.264, VP8) leaving the choice of which, to each implementation?

It sounds like that is the default if the working group does *not*
pick a mandatory.  Many implementations will do both of those, some
will do only one or the other - and some of those may end up with
no codec in comment and will not interoperate.  The whole point of
this excercise is to try to avoid that situation.

It may be unavoidable, in which case it's what will likely happen.
  -- Cos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email