Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Sat, 09 November 2013 19:37 UTC
Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44EB21E8092 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:37:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.733, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D+a81+mJY+9l for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com (mail-pb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EC321F9E9D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id jt11so3561514pbb.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:37:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9SCAOwC3BAxAVasR5mcOeC4uvgcwmVaxeCFLM1Pmync=; b=aaGXmoXncEg1A+tZAprxX0AYXBVHJMQnazGM8v5Sz5aktLtXlN3CZF/Em8RHstpMgt wbyoa+AattXWDTn9HrFTJAyBKVjYPv4xjpaJggXjw5IyPxf8IQCqUEOn9eEjQsLylNIU gLomreHIjgAxwpa5por4plpbQ6/egj11b6fYaBehcrgUY3adIu+of8ZJuEdgPdYnSqGj 4p1NfXIg6Bzs4+r1uHnH3GiWzGhIn/ofwq/vo4aU5AgbEG1U7ZC36qMOqZwLQJbcm/Bm Q4831CnpNV8UdhWYeomPxEWH1aP417F5atb9Wl7R/3017PnOZdhWaiOb8w0FJJUEP+Ys sgCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=9SCAOwC3BAxAVasR5mcOeC4uvgcwmVaxeCFLM1Pmync=; b=ayUg8vwmwM6hgpJMco8bjI73pk0CgEUONigpLHc87XkWGXKWtq2c5akjc/QUbh3iSd TOrIpqDuTM1BKHqKLl/b/tVq4dVrcBEFKYkhIGxOCMLhmF0rHMdr3b6Z7Hzk+Ln1Mwus 8tCZc1qtY923ERzszfE/SX3C0xcfn4tB6xcodpkhhCudWrfIi6QFP3sPTV0VIVMWlaqt OnSEziL59T/6Z3CO433jJDjg+87aCfzTlnzLxH7uH2V8sqCPHGa4AIA1q6PCgRcdbDh3 5kMdBk7q7aUDF+gWcw0VRz+VWv20SSS77nTwk0CYOU+TTvQ9YIJSmD0wz+891Bw8uEW6 AL7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyAGwV3+BZxJ43dS1uFqhyzhN2v+KlVLCojYmT8twCHGrR5sF9WnFN7/VsqyUBwnnrNc0GTeKyXV+T4TGBgnsSCxzbixL6SdMY4NUwfjBy5eNuzPL/qTH7lWykZ54ZGCcRJdnPyXZ0ReqLp1+4al+3Tb0CDZLEku2JU3uzfxxBscw9rFG+kKLDFNTSiOmFoCb7tcUv
X-Received: by 10.68.189.133 with SMTP id gi5mr21705162pbc.57.1384025844490; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:37:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.163.234 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:36:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <527DF3E3.7090906@nostrum.com>
References: <CEA19328.A9A84%stewe@stewe.org> <527D6BFA.9090509@nostrum.com> <20131109055935.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <527DF3E3.7090906@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:36:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFw15fRE9SM7Ts=7FspP0s=N3JWK_BaPMhiBFakZs=OzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1bfaad23c9404eac3a0c8"
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 09 Nov 2013 19:37:30 -0000
While I appreciate the effort to gather additional information, I am beginning to notice a trend that some of the big players here are forgetting about the smaller players. In particular, there aren't just 4 browsers in the world, and acting like there are only 4 browsers in the world does not look good from a "big players vs. small players" perspective. For example, can we really tell the world that our WG has concluded "lots of smaller players can't ship codec X, but we're going to mandate it anyway because the 4 big players are willing to ship it" (which they haven't, but assuming they did)? May I remind you that Firefox, the very browser you represent, until very recently, was on the "small player" side of the fence in the codec debate and only until very recently (apparently) switched sides? Perhaps you could still engender in yourself some lingering empathy for those other small players that cannot necessarily comply with the mandate of certain codecs that you are so willingly eager to press upon them. You may abandon their cause, you may disregard their complaints, and you may disparage their positions, but at least do not cease to acknowledge their existence and forget that you were once one them. There are more browsers than 4! On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > On 11/8/13 21:59, Ron wrote: > >> [T]he chairs already noted at the meeting that these browser >> vendors had all indicated they would support whatever MTI decision >> the working group made. >> > > I agree with you that one of the chairs indicated that he had personally > received off-the-record, back-channel indications to this effect. The > problem is that this assertion conflicts with off-the-record, back-channel > indications that I have myself received. > > Perhaps someone from each of Google, Microsoft, and Apple could stand up > and confirm the chair's claim. I'll note that Mozilla is already on the > record in this regard. > > /a > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 David Singer