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

Gregory Maxwell <> Sat, 23 November 2013 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9F41AE2D4 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7qKry80bACM for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DBA1AE2CF for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z5so1619077lbh.3 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aRIyLmQ/YEMsGUAMePUp9Wlv5tV/Pihh9HZvvvIspPE=; b=Hr7N60rCXoegGKTkSZR/Y0gy3lSuwJ5La0CNT97qx93TXvOOw38RGunlhofYEEBNjX 5yBStLcsUBlQLDhTqYix63ToNsl/LaF85kFSKL2gG4w0B6x1qffUwBy7Lc3JCO7NoCL5 0edn5pdqVXWzPSXbZcNiCWMSGp83iAkz64pXm+9y+K11+0CKoev1u0URQFHZXqml56ca seaZWVO4+1Bohl5TJUJJwjsKX0oxbN3xCPDvj996Qh9yaGs9NkV1V+VYpSWaws0J3PVB xuPYraVVUxaTHCizUHToXGnSx22hzNaZMyZO2O/ori3OpK96dVrMBGY2dNuvvIQaLpva ozzA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id d9mr8675057laa.25.1385169557215; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:19:17 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7WoA_EpD0PjZvHmbY1AFPCcLxaA
Message-ID: <>
From: Gregory Maxwell <>
To: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:19:26 -0000

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Parthasarathi R
<> 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.