IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9BC1AE032 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:35 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 pvJ7e2KJDhR7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864591ADF9C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU404-EAS223 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s8.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:28 -0800
X-TMN: [be+UIHAQzbHwipMPnv6wZc3IRCELUa5X]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU404-EAS223E4D9C40BE6ACD04D6E0C93DD0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48441927F3A@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A6D092.3090701@ericsson.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484419289C7@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A7A255.6050409@nostrum.com> <CABkgnnUZvKc5TF6anEJU=2RWUX1s2HpCqkLFUk1t0=ziUxE0dA@mail.gmail.com> <52A7B93F.2040409@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <52A7B93F.2040409@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:22 -0800
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2013 17:39:28.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0E24BA0:01CEF697]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:39:35 -0000

> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:36 AM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> 
> Methinks we are going to end up with two competing WebRTC specifications.

[BA] I would argue that if we don't get back on track we will end up with no specs in a useful timeframe. As Matthew said, the MTI issue is likely to be resolved in the marketplace in the fullness of time without the IETF. The same is not true of the RTCWEB documents - we need to accelerate progress.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email