Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 6B7FB1A87DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:50:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PyN7tGVptwGx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D62A1A87D4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (ip-64-134-138-182.public.wayport.net [64.134.138.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB61oEfu066168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:50:15 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host ip-64-134-138-182.public.wayport.net [64.134.138.182] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <548260D2.2020703@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:50:10 -0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <FCDCD184-549C-4111-ACDB-7C466A2EE9D1@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <FCDCD184-549C-4111-ACDB-7C466A2EE9D1@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4TnLe9PuECaLbTQA1W6VhAUg8vc
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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, 06 Dec 2014 01:50:18 -0000

On 12/5/14 15:26, David Singer wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:58 , Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
> if you could speak only for yourself, and not others, that might be better.  You’re claiming support by other people here.
>

If I read Jean-Marc's statement correctly, it's not speaking on behalf 
of other people; it's using what they have already said, on the record 
[1], as a valid part of his rationale.

I'd like to reinforce this sentiment. I support this proposal not 
because I think it is the best solution, but because it is the first MTI 
video codec proposal that the actual implementors in this technology 
space have even remotely agreed on since the discussion began. I support 
this proposal primarily because it is the only solution we have yet seen 
that has a credible chance of succeeding.

That's a powerful reason -- at least, for those people invested in this 
technology -- but it necessarily involves pointing to the positions of 
others. This is not the same as making statements on their behalf, as 
you claim; it is merely acknowledging that they've already made such 
statements.

/a


____
[1] I'm not going through the effort of gathering citations here, as I 
would expect that you, and all other involved participants, are 
sufficiently familiar with the ongoing conversation to make doing so 
unnecessary. If you'd like to make the claim such positions have *not* 
been asserted by the parties in question, I'll happily point you to a 
trove of relevant emails, meeting minutes, slide decks, and audio 
recordings.