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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 E85881A8A9F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 Vb4lstph2NBx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41C2E1A8A9E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kq14so1861566pab.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:32:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bSxSEMQ+s0nZviOva3nbyy3GqoYV6o+UJQTcgPRbj04=; b=05afhHppmUm7QavFYbfJQMUDaIe6fWhIvXrZ3aGR8LUQSW9pag8oIRO13H62tr8GTf Qhy4HTUAl8V3NXyw4cywtBxwp5pQUlanGdMI3sEn2Ju5M2zhvMMJdFvpR3P1kacfeL8N Zr0/MnN2uGLZzoEi4fgxHw3YlgxtZMyWjhuELdtnJkjqY+HiB4Re8jwRvss1XNL8DVTF hj7jGvOdLEK7kYfdZfT+zlaXw99aJ/JY+ZTtZjgaqTzSQCRB4IBW4Ba1msjsgLtgbX9J SlG41ovy/KUCo8Ia0wpVd4o6XyPIpOnD+FA6BKYVL6Jh1r+VCfQQcjSdIDn8Eiiv/eex /LgQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.66.102 with SMTP id e6mr34882834pat.6.1417836721565; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.137] (c-71-227-237-49.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.227.237.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gx5sm14911269pbb.96.2014.12.05.19.32.00 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B435)
In-Reply-To: <A5667955-21FC-4596-A86A-0902408BCC12@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:31:59 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <94C89195-99FC-4807-B00B-1A94701C8724@gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <FCDCD184-549C-4111-ACDB-7C466A2EE9D1@apple.com> <548260D2.2020703@nostrum.com> <A5667955-21FC-4596-A86A-0902408BCC12@apple.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4_yQQBXye4nes8SKyA0_S33TFbg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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 03:32:04 -0000

On Dec 5, 2014, at 17:50 , Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> 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 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.

[BA] While this does appear to be a statement from an implementer about support in their own product, it does not correctly characterize the nature of the "consensus" as a whole. The "consensus" here did not involve acceptance by RTCWEB implementers of the necessity for them to support both H.264 and VP8.  Had such a proposal been made it most probably would have failed. Instead the "consensus" call involved imposing an obligation on a subset of implementers without their agreement.  There is a term for *that*, but it isn't "consensus" - the 13 colonies called it "taxation without representation".