Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.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 415E71A6EDE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:31:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 bsy0YhHq5LWw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.151.62.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE241A1AAA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:31:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1418153483; x=2282067083; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0pAaWOkyt8g6+J4OjtbMBUBi6afsr5E5QEMWbvjS51I=; b=zQ2oQUimupyt75uQCMduEQf/TCNS37Gz1UwqYMKBmknElDPtFj6CF02HCe7sQGiq fhAggrO2enzOPRR2pgjLUk15DWfZNfpMAysGh1snypZy7RY0G9gL8SQJOV/JGfZi uQXmo0wgUSW765WjhncFv8tS4RQdg5tuC24LElOsflx76aI9eo+uXW2c4mAorJgL 5UxGE9DruAIYGpdOz7OFKa3ox3HCTtDsECpS1dQ6rEmMtPMh5zqCSTpgZv2gbSeA JdLFp8Rfi7SZV/53yiqWrQ3EbL85E/C9TAKxj95YVMxG4wlTDl8HE2SZxNwJSbTh YtUnsX5K4qrN7XIuv/a6vg==;
Received: from relay7.apple.com (relay7.apple.com [17.128.113.101]) by mail-in2.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id AA.B5.26546.B0E47845; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:31:23 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e11-f79af6d0000067b2-73-54874e0b5498
Received: from chive.apple.com (chive.apple.com [17.128.115.15]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 16.C0.06091.BED47845; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.153.29.83] (unknown [17.153.29.83]) by chive.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NGB00DMIY89FJ90@chive.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <54874B66.5050700@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:31:23 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <AE151623-3747-4835-AF3E-2953F442E995@apple.com>
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com> <CAOW+2dskg9CQF9qw3oktcEGySdWJZCF6sXHXdgAnwc8ph1iVtw@mail.gmail.com> <54874B66.5050700@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCYqsvt1x5icOGnjMXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKuHTTvOA9f8WWZpUGxhs8XYycHBICJhJ9jxYwQdhiEhfurWfr YuTiEBLYxyjx5foaNpiii9+uskIkupkk5sxpZ4Jzvr6bxtLFyMHBLKAuMWVKLkgDr4CeRNOT x2BThQXMJTZ2HWEGsdkEVCUezDnGCGJzCmhL9M1oB1vAAhSf9fsImM0sUCMxt/MmK4StLfHk 3QVWiJk2Eo82HACzhQReMEp0PuEEsUUEFCXaDt9khjhUVuLfxTPsILdJCLxklZh/cQbrBEbh WQjnzUJy3iwkKxYwMq9iFMpNzMzRzcwz0kssKMhJ1UvOz93ECArh6XaCOxiPr7I6xCjAwajE w6th2RYixJpYVlyZe4hRmoNFSZz3hg1QSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA+Pn+Sax am+XPRP7ErdrXZLI3ZiJE7fqLPizKVn48rZ/R7cp9qmd1tpqfV5H+sCNbd7hPK8tJj05NbFe 83/yEY/LD943Oh+LnP/7iuL9VdJ9n31Mu+3dDx21OJ/mrrL8RwhLv8He15qv/k/4dsM2gG/v x0f36nyKrh1s2rJk/+ZrDesuvTkjP8vqhxJLcUaioRZzUXEiADj4+cJCAgAA
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDMr/vatz3E4OwdFYu1/9rZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVcemmecF7/ootzSoNjDd4uhg5OSQETCQufrvKCmGLSVy4t56t i5GLQ0igm0lizpx2Jjjn67tpLF2MHBzMAuoSU6bkgjTwCuhJND15zARiCwuYS2zsOsIMYrMJ qEo8mHOMEcTmFNCW6JvRzgZiswDFZ/0+AmYzC9RIzO28yQpha0s8eXeBFWKmjcSjDQfAbCGB F4wSnU84QWwRAUWJtsM3mSEOlZX4d/EM+wRGgVkIF81CctEsJFMXMDKvYhQoSs1JrDTXSywo yEnVS87P3cQIDrnC1B2MjcutDjEKcDAq8fBqWLaFCLEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLhXcvSHiLEm5JY WZValB9fVJqTWnyIUZqDRUmcN+RdY4iQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qB8bzIE93f27rnvdnt sCiR2VZOU1DztnbIz5p095s+jvX3j3VfumP8fa+wyRZjji3z53M+n/5jWqTJP0f2EokZP1a8 +bDc/otBctPV7dk7MqZ+6tM8eDKbL+PljaniEatilBMnOrBOKe14vTTyv4TIx0TPYr5CTaFi s1U34qbqOiYd/Fz5yJzfUYmlOCPRUIu5qDgRAN7D6L01AgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/3hdMcsrlCUe8H8QRcPgCxLrVZYA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:31:25 -0000

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:20 , Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/9/14 13:08, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> [BA] I agree that the vast majority of people answering probably believe that the requirements don't apply to the non-browser category, but actually the proposal is that dual MTI does apply to non-browsers, right? It's just the WebRTC-compatible endpoints that are exempt.  So it's actually worse than "those other people should do it" - it's really "I intend to ignore the requirements myself and pretend that they don't apply to me while holding other people to  them".
> 
> So, even though no one has stood up and said as much, you're hypothesizing that some vast majority of people who disagree with you must be doing so only because they're bad actors? I think you need more evidence than what amounts to a conspiracy theory if you're going to level that kind of accusation.


Jeepers, guys, do we have to resort to this kind of language?  

I honestly DO NOT KNOW how many endpoints, of any kind, would expect to support both codecs.  Getting a rough sense of that would be really useful. Happily I don’t need to care about why people land where they do, how conspiratorial, deceitful, or anything they may be. In fact, I expect most people are trying to do their best, balancing everything. But I don’t know what that means.

That’s why I said that saying that a WebRTC implementation, in a browser, is not a WebRTC Browser but a WebRTC-Compatible Endpoint, though formally possible, is questionable — it would appear to be skirting the intent of the spec.

For example, I *think* that Firefox would if H.264 is either available on the platform, or available via the Cisco download for that platform. So if I am right, they get pretty close.  Beyond that, who knows?

So, please, can we assume people are trying to do the best they can?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.