IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Sat, 09 November 2013 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 9D41B21F9FB1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ESZ+G+Uz6qdJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:36:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8107121F9EE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (184-77-219-247.war.clearwire-wmx.net [184.77.219.247]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rA98ZkxC094667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Nov 2013 02:35:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <527DF3E3.7090906@nostrum.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 00:35:47 -0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEA19328.A9A84%stewe@stewe.org> <527D6BFA.9090509@nostrum.com> <20131109055935.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20131109055935.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 184.77.219.247 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [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 08:36:01 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email