Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 02 October 2012 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FA221F85B8 for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mk7zl1IQqc3f for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2327F21F85B1 for <>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbfc26 with SMTP id fc26so7919249vbb.31 for <>; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=maa4nJvd6ASw0+iIs+6EaNKLZ3XKRz4zHy7M6b8F7Ic=; b=VsE00ZGdg3z66cN9g0fjRFtaLGyjKPKmu+O72s2jZx8kUGleVsfc30rz5NsCwQ+Ts7 8QMJC2puhuXc1ZdeMdJXV1BlstwnU3H0q0rmxXNN79SQzl2KHEFsA4N3AQyNA6svdFfY zQjRvBMeeytl6BQZm1+mwc7uzdfSygXzHb1pjNifN6Ium+rw2NZBkXrsQ7NCw5/620vf 8x2DD03tDQb0MbMBoM70c1lw3OtefPfba3QlbG0U6wezTjItUFUzRzO+cia9wqkxnozA 9XumK/RhaXLd16A8XyWWKDknB9ucwqVQnrSHK2+sxwvnwEE3COnuaDWgDMTlCRqzmo9v rM/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id cc1mr8781335vdc.61.1349204554571; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:02:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:02:36 -0000

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM,  <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Why do you want to receive these proposals as drafts instead of just on the mailing list? I have a proposal/opinion and a few simple arguments for it, but writing a draft about it seems like a lot of overhead.
> Markus

Sorry that the draft system creates extra overhead, but we think it is
useful to make all the proposals parallel, and we believe at least
some of them will have technical justifications that would be
complicated to include in an email.  In particular, why you'd pick a
specific profile of a codec with multiple profiles may require
contextualizing the different profiles in ways that would be difficult
to put into an email.  When we have drafts, we are also more likely to
get reviews from those who are picking up on our work from grabbing
the related drafts.  Lastly, if folks need to declare IPR in a
proposal, the system is better set up to do so with a draft than an

Thanks for taking it on despite the overhead,



>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [] On Behalf
>>Of ext Ted Hardie
>>Sent: 02 October, 2012 19:25
>>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012
>>Just a reminder that this deadline is approaching quickly; please get your
>>drafts in!
>>Ted Hardie
>>On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
>>> As agreed at the recent meeting, the chairs solicit internet-drafts
>>> naming proposed mandatory-to-implement video codecs or codec sets by
>>> October 15th, 2012.  Please include any technical data you believe
>>> supports the choice you are proposing.  A non-exhaustive list of data
>>> you may wish to include is found in slides 3-6 of
>>> .
>>> Discussion based on these will commence immediately upon receipt,
>>> rather than waiting until the October 15th deadline, so early
>>> submission is encouraged.
>>> regards,
>>> Ted Hardie
>>rtcweb mailing list