IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@ella.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 3B8021ADFB3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:22:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 wrgOLGZoBhQH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob11.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob11.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03361ADF56 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob11.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rASKMMf2026451 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:22:22 -0500
Received: (qmail 1555 invoked by uid 0); 28 Nov 2013 20:22:22 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.15.102?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 28 Nov 2013 20:22:22 -0000
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP2528701C9F2545FCE220744B1EE0@phx.gbl>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----7ZZ5C3ZUZXCOYCH2EHRW280ZF8F8X9"
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:22:19 +0000
To: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <205438ef-0fb4-48c5-9f56-5af9ef7f13ca@email.android.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:07:47 -0800
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 20:22:26 -0000

Hi,

Is it possible to reach rough consensus on MTI of one from (H.264 ,VP8 )  leaving the choice of which, to each implementation?

Avri

Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> wrote:
>On 28/11/13 8:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>> It seems to me that if there are sane strongly-held objections to
>both 
>> of the alternatives on the table, then neither alternative is
>suitable 
>> for a standards-track RFC.
>So, does that mean that there should not be a standardized codec for 
>WebRTC, or that we should come up with with a new alternative that 
>nobody wants?

~~~
avri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email