Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.com>
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 612351A87E0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9R5MpD6kcgL3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.151.62.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B0651A87A4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:44:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1418150678; x=2282064278; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Y/PCweQoS+2lr26/UwDGGTXrah3YSnwXcFO9NWmbJo8=; b=k9jc2b34UpnZa/FjNramtfU8s7bl9ZDB7HwB2l4eQzVNQyMN1/4LjyFBkz9YSKKg 8u1l/S534rlgHglC8FkDYZj5vZ3RRVIN+XgLdORP7+xC2OyZ3anJ6iDj6MUGvnhz cHU6a1z91lcld3u/iRcR3w8buQwmQ4rTmqwJuyf49/YXUc2DFRdwVdCye8ndrSq+ ikxZAxGI8h5ybMtpvVMvftQzQZzJExisbHz2d3ZjQMJzbW69Sh7PzNYg9UnesJ7B mP5ylsvjXhenap0eLERfaYjJUWu3LOcsJ0FqGlh8ZHMuucXbdxZdQFXsZdlb2oHp 0fhXDYlXcAWcFUJfB6FX8A==;
Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com [17.128.113.87]) by mail-in4.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 4C.04.12074.61347845; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e12-f79f86d000002f2a-d6-548743168fcf
Received: from chive.apple.com (chive.apple.com [17.128.115.15]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay4.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id E3.76.05998.82347845; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:44:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [17.153.29.83] (unknown [17.153.29.83]) by chive.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NGB00DD1W2DFJ70@chive.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:44:39 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <53ECE529-C011-4666-B044-226613CA263D@apple.com>
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYrivm3B5i8HSCocXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeLVvM2tBL19Fy5bLTA2Mm7m7GDk5JARMJBZPvswEYYtJXLi3 nq2LkYtDSGAvo8SVzUvZYIqm32hkh0h0M0n8fz0Hwfm+di5rFyMHB7OAusSUKbkgDbwCehJN Tx6DTRUWMJfY2HWEGcRmE1CVeDDnGCOIzSmgLXH02nGwVhag+P0ZCiBhZoFgiaMPjzBB2NoS T95dACvhFbCRaPihCBIWEqiT+Nw7lRXEFhFQlGg7fJMZ4kxZiX8Xz7BD2G9ZJXZdSJjAKDwL 4bZZSG6bhWTBAkbmVYxCuYmZObqZeSZ6iQUFOal6yfm5mxhBATzdTmgH46lVVocYBTgYlXh4 NSzbQoRYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ8960AQoJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpglDl7lU1u pfs1qWsm/G7yf27lCn77oTZ5V3zLa9epCut8a85mc1+ui+lg+yGp+7T46/Og3CsLp69avuxf Lpvdyf+7VvXdus7xu9now9MzE2vmHDuqs+n+pN9P9J2Xb576/AnHra/lZ+u2H7UIie96zXOf dw7TywvcptPN5p0RY3idxDHR+I/NmXVKLMUZiYZazEXFiQCIIxBCQQIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDMr6vh3B5isOITh8Xaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeLVvM2tBL19Fy5bLTA2Mm7m7GDk5JARMJKbfaGSHsMUkLtxb z9bFyMUhJNDNJPH/9Rx2OOf72rmsXYwcHMwC6hJTpuSCNPAK6Ek0PXnMBGILC5hLbOw6wgxi swmoSjyYc4wRxOYU0JY4eu04WCsLUPz+DAWQMLNAsMTRh0eYIGxtiSfvLoCV8ArYSDT8UAQJ CwnUSXzuncoKYosIKEq0Hb7JDHGmrMS/i2fYJzAKzEK4ZxaSe2YhGbqAkXkVo0BRak5ipYle YkFBTqpecn7uJkZwyBWG72D8t8zqEKMAB6MSD6+GZVuIEGtiWXFl7iFGCQ5mJRHetSztIUK8 KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5m981hggJpCeWpGanphakFsFkmTg4pRoY9842j9Ft/ZZ3 VWT2zjtegVZNfPunLs1y68qL+6PZV8OsP3vqQaboFxNYuPqvL6lZduXepq8PGs+1TFg/NaBl umrhQ6VP4sv7yz4uZRXZM0vV+sHeN1ujXkRIzkw9Y5D9ILL3bXjwjou1XcI8T6c3zlebfDft Wc5Txc+nF23qzzzf+zzm1M9XHkosxRmJhlrMRcWJAHGgefU1AgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/AiVUQMG29u7RKDSOwMIW_wUReUw
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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, 09 Dec 2014 18:44:40 -0000

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:46 , Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/9/14 11:32, David Singer wrote:
>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to...
> 
> Wait, you're pressing other companies for future product plans? With the implication that doing so is a prerequisite to participating in the discussion?
> 
> That's a mighty sharp blade there. You might check where it's pointed.

Yes, I realize that almost no-one can make promises about what they will ship. And some companies will be in a position where they can’t say anything.  And yes, my company has a strict policy of not promising what we will or won’t do in the future.  But, hypothetically, if the statement was “must support H.264” I could clearly indicate that that I expect it to be unproblematic.

But surely those that see the dual mandate as unproblematic for them to implement can say that, can’t they?  Surely we can see at least a reasonable number of “yes, we would hope/expect/intend to ship both”, as a non-binding indication?

I mean, the draft ‘must do both’ would require people who have a principled objection to paying fees, having to pay for H.264. I am curious, are people willing to let their principles (and money) go, in order to comply with the ‘must’?

Obviously, I am trying to assess whether this compromise would, in fact, be effective in practice — would enough people abide by its intent that we’d get the interoperability that is the point of the mandate?  I don’t want to be citing RFC 6919 :-).

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.