IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

bryandonnovan@gmail.com Sat, 14 December 2013 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bryandonnovan@gmail.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 4F7381ADF79 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:52:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 a272VD1x3jF5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:52:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x230.google.com (mail-vb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC101AE16F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:51:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f13so2187662vbg.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:51:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v+DhVuiP2rk/dZvAoAeMZV6ftg39Ki/Li7/SuT2bZMc=; b=qX5uQWy0/jFS9SaMe1ugI5dUi3XXdb+nqhvR/BNQyGO5nSFvpy2MxHUwu0Djfbvjq4 R/1KqV9UaobPMuX6ZSa/O08quJezbhrBKc65ZvNplOojYKnWQBxdu5FI3kWlj9Sj+JbG zcaZ0I4rRIMqG2kgc0DlZ1dGBrO4FRdSDRfDpJ8UO/TTeDS/r5y0fZ2U2GbQ7HelziZs yXcdPSTfvuvZiOqpAlpmchIUbu+cU/1deCtacA/ZHVIRHxGI8i9c16RPiQY7qzo9Sh0M GWV6akCApwJDyXEE42dv86/xMYKIiLz9Ugw1HSFezEUaqOwjmRs+/lxUz4eukwpkJ1KP frvw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.24.162 with SMTP id v2mr174627vef.39.1387050711712; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.110.138 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:51:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20131212214310.GR3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFA3EA.AC30E%stewe@stewe.org> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F8739@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213024334.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F88D6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <20131213033344.GW3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CECFF758.205FF%mzanaty@cisco.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A16219B@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <20131214102855.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <20131214122049.604352b3@rainpc> <20131214132520.GZ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AC7B89.3030103@bbs.darktech.org> <CAMwTW+g6q0gRbdioEkw8aUjpBY1s=V=sHbPNXaebFbhr6WihJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:51:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMwTW+gkTJoKOP_VnNDPDrA+3Y9oyQQ1TNahyH4+yE6Zg1k7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
From: bryandonnovan@gmail.com
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a8130f50c3104ed83e81d"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))
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: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:52:09 -0000

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:27 AM,  <bryandonnovan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 -
> >
> > Anyone else notice the silence of VP8 detractors in response to Google's
> > offer to host a VP8 binary?
>
> You mean aside from the original suggestion coming from Cullen in the
> first place? It would be great if we could have this discussion without
> people personally attacking others the way that seems to be happening
> in this thread.
>

I don't believe that I made a personal attack. I was thinking of recent
straw poll responses citing IPR objections to VP8.  If the IPR objections
are made in "good faith", then we might expect enthusiastic reception of a
hosted vp8 binary since it specifically addresses those concerns.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email