IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@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 37BDA1AD9B7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_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 zXQquw6Y5Le8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6914B1ACC82 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i4so3777589oah.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=A+TvwisRB4uANaDyNCNF2VDGUFDJQQkYhdjpGdYAE5s=; b=MO7BIfVC5HUF+Xssy3lV2VPoPhMh5A04MWKkaW5OnbAoEOVmU+foqxsBEcl4pLEUbL bw/fU9EGInXqe8BCgcIFfCdyxXGRvylILQ46RM/IHUIf+I4Cx+YUjFN/5/KwKpeNOssH gM8eAoyxd+ReTf3t2Aix26W2wB2dJ+nv59NW3whzzFZnRAN/3pcksKCOOhoNkR7av6yv Xf4ZxVHAQKrpxzvUe5evDkHg5xWDqemADwd9l+MVzIhqljLkIVKeH6zUQCjWrVzMI4mb 3OL0TZwZTt6Izzd1lkaYQ0Bmg+v3yMslLrVJqw9h6WgejHIJ1HgPvwVR3vK3vXrU03it B9UQ==
X-Received: by 10.182.88.4 with SMTP id bc4mr291964obb.68.1389348184410; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:03:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:02:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:02:44 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kq+_uG=9XwoAGtRgqYU2Asc2Fv6RZ0aCW6cJi-LnhD+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:03:15 -0000

Recently there have been a whole bunch of replies that only accepted
option 1 with the singluar rationale that it's the only option to
provide interop with legacy networks.

1.     All entities MUST support H.264
a.     Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES

2.     All entities MUST support VP8
a.     Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
summarize them: interoperability with legacy networks

[all others are NO]

All these people do not want a new technology, but only want more of
what they already have.

Can I ask why you even bother with WebRTC, if you want to restrict
WebRTC to interoperability with old systems only and therefore to old
features only?

I'd like to suggest that such replies should be disregarded because
they look backwards and not forwards.

Best Regards,
Silvia.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email