Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 15 December 2014 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 03E6E1A0167 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7aemZrprqWWN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E811A015F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id rd18so11652156iec.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1l6023rIE6TbV527o2gNpJv/dPJwSe3PzOk59z9aFHY=; b=BOyJJrMtBWi37+xXn0f3EDtOfutEAxYyzVvN/dWHrGrytavQxk2tuHtyJWz1rE3X+b QPRivRO74z/HbSXEfxBXpHfRR3CpyN1pqhyAoyObU6F0v5ypccV8CT7WcLc8O2GsiwqW dvkoJAd+BiYQX7bM4SeQ4f/X01VsQDI0IiLOv4hZRqeOQENsImNei9wfNrTQSXNdMfSW KVQDlgN9e/JFZcrFXBlJM9rTlLVX8VCxpzwziH4/HCv0ArXmCD/7sf4U+QNUWuhwy7VK DK4mYlVZchC/F2WbndL18+mYG2E38rNZ6L/tLAzAZtPhvvQq0kkyyUOkGm7ru2sd2jDC ZbKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.11.15 with SMTP id s15mr23214692ics.18.1418680998987; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.107.145 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net>
References: <548AFB1A.1040405@andyet.net> <548AFF76.1010003@nostrum.com> <CALiegfmH6hWp6nuArv8YyPcgq6SCd9x-dU0cxAaKJLrmb0hc_g@mail.gmail.com> <548B047F.9090704@nostrum.com> <56448CBD-FB31-4468-B449-497652FCAAEB@apple.com> <548B7EFF.5080105@andyet.net> <CALiegfkMUzQVOKk433d4TZtvenQWQwChYF2vc7HMED2s2wHZ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <B52D8E91-5D96-4960-8DDE-DD970014DE5D@ieca.com> <CALiegfnRvgDK4EnDBSn76YKktWLMjShsQRP6byCRqZC07WaVqw@mail.gmail.com> <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" <peter@andyet.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30434866fe8d79050a486861
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/DaU_5s1vq6TeIFduGWMsZ5u4MmU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:03:22 -0000

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
wrote:

> Not as far as I can see.
>
> Ten years ago if we'd had this discussion, H.261 might have been MTI. Ten
> years from now, H.264 will seem ancient, too.
>
> I fully expect that someone in the IETF (perhaps not us) will revisit the
> MTI decision once we have better alternatives.
>
> Peter
>

​The nice thing is that our current model allows us to have nice things
right away; as soon as they are in common, they may be selected by
negotiation.  What the MTI gives us is a way to avoid interoperability
failure.  So the key question isn't really "Is there something better?" but
"Is the current MTI so bad that folks aren't willing to use it, so we are
once again at risk of interoperability failure?".

Whenever we are at risk of interoperability failure, the IETF may have to
revisit the question.  But the future group will have an option we lack:
if nothing else seems more likely to be adopted, it can fall back on the
current MTI.  That may make the calculus a bit easier; we may also have
enough interoperability with some later codec that the answer will be
obvious.  I have no crystal ball, but I certainly hope we will not have to
go through this whole experience again.

regards,

Ted