IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 09A861ADF8C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 7cXkxOKHRH3t for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5DB1A1F7D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so15010454ieb.36 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=y4wwG0WuMDUdtDQJeOMueQoZ1EbwGwYc9DLgRCaeu0A=; b=PRk8vaCNJP8lzOsdK+fGZJGzH16hPO4EApN2ZTpjKtGrnUPb3ejKlKtqf+mCXexgF9 0LfmUY+lIfKzyhpiQ4yJZkXksXqqjQjwrms7Qw5Ga39qv2BYONVoFwxvrN/dFZs/fx1N AHFvKLjYAuFL72wyj2FMDdOJFZThmp/P7qMLYS5cp7BFfI1pDhUjVubR5pGrOwkLoXel UsJ1TQhWVMSmSAIzTuFmd6bx+Og+8ToVK4rJEFhAWyxR3zu0b1x44dRBcYoSWvixLPvt W3dvlcWCRCbEt52iS87rnSp5c4Mq+H6wYPM7vm7vtaclB0NfYiASlYN04i8IZxPbjr6s 4u4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkaZ9X/cEXRN2dNdp6FGicv/8VGZHBeOQvoXcvDIm4Ywzc4+i4E8t6Leqvb4mLaqT66pMVp
X-Received: by 10.42.215.11 with SMTP id hc11mr10449338icb.47.1385677621616; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qi3sm47156433igc.8.2013.11.28.14.27.00 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5297C306.1070905@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:26:14 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>, <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org> <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>, <CAHp8n2mvebymnt_DgmHn310QY_Bgb-2oJyJhEeMxJCNz46ftZg@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W49AEA803256B7982E052D993EE0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W49AEA803256B7982E052D993EE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030503070307020109060508"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:27:04 -0000

On 28/11/2013 5:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
> > supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL
>
>
> [BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that 
> interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video, 
> the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today, 
> millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.
>

That's because servers are able to offer the same pre-recorded video in 
multiple formats. The same is not true for WebRTC where:

  * There might not be a server.
  * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.

GIli

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email