IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 29 November 2013 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 769291AE0DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 7P1LKBbpCx0X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC4D1AE0D3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAT3RRVS027326; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:27:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489053C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.5.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A3278A0; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:27:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <D9F35A16-58D8-4F7F-A640-3E9B0A341BD8@iii.ca>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:27:21 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA355BB7-8287-41EB-A59F-2955EE5D4C07@tzi.org>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwgF-NL=LxaAjkVPVVO6a1oevLvvNqYxn6ug5w-zxdez3Q@mail.gmail.com> <D9F35A16-58D8-4F7F-A640-3E9B0A341BD8@iii.ca>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, IETF 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: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 03:27:41 -0000

On 29 Nov 2013, at 00:05, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

> As a quick cheat sheet to where browser vendors might stand on this matter...

Thanks.

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?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email