Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Sun, 24 November 2013 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 9BC831AE031 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:29:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.803
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 wZJ_BEr4vCij for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us2.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8091ADF6A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.42.105]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 57B616381AC; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:29:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1385321370; bh=YmM5+i9LJFGdcZZwktWmvqaqw4hvNrz1ovoe3lvzGxE=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ASTi30fFqoQ7JVXfSgYmfwJas/ksQQUonjA3zIwP/gvBkIe8W76L50WcSgnZQ5y38 /dhVxMEDn+3FInF6XCMNgKmp7P8brYDuZ3ROmS0qwI9gOP+xxWm2gqnp7uiH2vT/ZO I9xyMwVuBiXa6oVToPWPusvYJXZ3aALwOAAq84kY=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: "'Gregory Maxwell'" <greg@xiph.org>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CAAS2fgT30j451f_QwdBu8Bri5bg-wGOyWdWnYrTGk1QibHarmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT30j451f_QwdBu8Bri5bg-wGOyWdWnYrTGk1QibHarmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:59:26 +0530
Message-ID: <003101cee94b$7ef72c30$7ce58490$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7n6gyYeJVMEIV/Qb2sysYF5iwLZQBYCjcg
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.5292539A.0062, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Rules: SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.142
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
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: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:29:39 -0000

Gregory,

Please consider the situation like couple of browser vendors don't complies with MTI or delay the chosen MTI for 3-5 years.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory
> Maxwell
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:49 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after
> election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
> 
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Parthasarathi R
> <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> wrote:
> > I agree with Emil & Peter that voting will not help to achieve Video
> codec
> > MTI in the industry. Let us assume that codec x is selected as per
> the
> > election result. Why should the opposite camp browser vendor or
> WebRTC
> > gateway/conference vendor *MUST* implement the specified codec x for
> the
> > sake IETF compliance?
> 
> In some markets being able to respond "Complies" to an RFP requirement
> for a particular RFC is commercially significant.
> 
> It is also not unlikely that there is a great swath of "will do the
> minimum necessary" implementers— outside of the big name vendors— who
> will tend to just do as the spec requires. So the decision here
> determines what code licensing/exposure will be required to interop
> with those parties.
> 
> There are also a number of other reasons parties may care.
> 
> And, as you can observe, many people do care. If it really was
> irrelevant you wouldn't see all of this noise.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb