IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Tue, 11 November 2014 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
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 E4BDB1A88F9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:32:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Jl2bp7TizB6I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eeph.com (mail.eeph.com [IPv6:2001:470:826a:d2::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C044E1A88F6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.14.50] (unknown [12.1.203.3]) (Authenticated sender: matthew@eeph.com) by mail.eeph.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A38BE46500E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54619F6E.6030703@matthew.at>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:32:30 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <CABcZeBML8bfVNBO5HC69w4CkrHh148R6vo_8rgqM0+MuXhM1HQ@mail.gmail.com> <54614458.2070204@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <54614458.2070204@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070103010401070103000902"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7ItJGmmFcBWUHPEBXBiXpSLtUmU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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, 11 Nov 2014 05:32:33 -0000

On 11/10/2014 3:03 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 02:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at 
>> <mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
>>
>>     I cited those three players just as examples of known positions.
>>     There are several others, of course.
>>
>>     This proposal puts the large initial burden of IPR risk and/or
>>     cost on the browser vendors...
>>
>>     I think we would need to know how happy Apple, Google, Microsoft,
>>     and Mozilla (plus the other major browser vendors ) are with a
>>     requirement that both H.264 and VP8 be included with their
>>     browser and/or operating system.
>>
>>
>> As I said previously, we're fine with this requirement.
>
> Google is also fine with this requirement.

So that's two browser vendors who are fine with that requirement.

I can't speak for my employer, but I hear that we are a well-known 
browser vendor as well.

Nor can I speak for Apple,  but I know they're a browser vendor as I use 
their browser on some of my personal devices.

Would sure be nice to get closer to 100% agreement from the people who 
actually ship the code in question.

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email