Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

Rohit Puri <> Mon, 06 August 2012 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8C121E80AC for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhdyytSlAa-f for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D54021E80AB for <>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so7256036obb.31 for <>; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-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:x-gm-message-state; bh=ehWjtnMttlJhR7tbJegyXvXql5wInrL3xaXQToiZJ3M=; b=Ff4JzaM7imRy0ofLOH4A100n9qn93raqJXVuDub6xP8R8VogbpmdhV2rtLkcZ22u6p g4hO9X9r+9fKsUBBrXq1MDgls2RENqRpv2JKe92V8GGe5EDmUNsx7FTZAG7eJiWRU+V7 IFKjkR0/K5LfNh9jsauZaUS4EiOr7lEM+Wj6PLwEh09VlOAhYHF5K5s5FbL4/R212R1v XzAXN8rUN55t1S1DLY2Qr17Y6ihQqVm0nY5qtrKKghAFhUBdAe2d91A9kr714HPR9wWx I5/R2OrGQrqvz0bPEt3D5Q69XtqHLbO7FWQf+Lhms/n46Z9Gs7kOXdATww5/HXEHCFsP UyLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id cm7mr132914obc.17.1344286174489; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:49:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Rohit Puri <>
To: Justin Uberti <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8396e3e82bb604c69f034e
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl67PNB1SxreiHet2tiVnDuoCA0DRabtWy/wg7IsJfi4oP3kDn7wF43Xm8gRWKV9Msguo7C
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:49:36 -0000

Having not been actively involved in the effort and realizing that i might
be late to the party, i do not mean to cause distraction. Regardless, I
want to voice out the following high-level opinion based on what we have
been learning at TenHands Inc. (this is one of the reasons for us to
continue with a plugin implementation for our service).

If from the media pipeline perspective, it were possible to have an
architecture like for example, gstreamer, wherein there is a concept of a
processing chain for media and it is possible for the client developer to
provide proprietary processing blocks that suit the use case for their
application better than the default implementation, that would be great.

Perhaps, the MSFT proposal does not talk about this, but two of the tenets
they lay out upfront, namely (a) *Customizable response to changing network
quality and (b) **Flexibility in its support of popular media formats and
codecs as well as openness to future innovation* certainly sound appealing.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Justin Uberti <> wrote:

> Note also that pre- and post-processing of media are not covered by this
> proposal, those concepts are in the domain of MediaStream (and
> post-processing is possible today through various methods).
> In fact, I think the primary novel features of this proposal are:
> - SessionDescriptions are true objects, instead of wrappers around SDP
> - Additional control over the ICE Agent
> However, no use cases have yet been outlined that require this
> functionality.
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <
>> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Rohit Puri wrote:
>> > Based on our experiences at TenHands Inc. where we are trying to build
>> a RT video-centric collaboration service, the goal cited in MSFT proposal (
>>, namely:
>> >
>> > "Flexibility in its support of popular media formats and codecs as well
>> as openness to future innovation—A successful standard cannot be tied to
>> individual codecs, data formats or scenarios. They may soon be supplanted
>> by newer versions, which would make such a tightly coupled standard
>> obsolete just as quickly. The right approach is instead to to support
>> multiple media formats and to bring the bulk of the logic to the
>> application layer, enabling developers to innovate. "
>> >
>> > sounds like a great idea.
>> and every proposal from any company or individual that I can recall being
>> sent to theses WGs has had exactly that property. So it is sort of
>> disappointing to see Microsoft present it as if their proposal was somehow
>> different in this regards.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list

Thanks and best regards,

Rohit Puri (
Software Development, TenHands Inc. (
My TenHands URL: