IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Sun, 24 November 2013 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 87BA41AE1D7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:18:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.103
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 6zH78j3VSe2Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us2.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.238]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCE81AE1C1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 11:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.42.105]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5E91E638FF1; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:18:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1385320700; bh=CJ6OmD1HxcZkIMLB4Y+8vw7jPax0U+wgeGPXisysYis=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cHyJQHka9CggC5ksZH812/ob7YuxCunVYfVVR3jGmVx5kTegQjkHCSfgNrwDA0hgD 3ishfspg3ZohT9GU4yUW93rgNc4XFxdanjyouheQ1sv8DVmNhrr9kTI/ZP0TH6mhVA /LilxsBN2U25WnxEc2jr3ELeEPIDHASl3rrbecQ8=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: "'Hervé W.'" <h_o_w_@hotmail.com>, 'Emil Ivov' <emcho@jitsi.org>, "'Peter St Andre, (stpeter)'" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5057.30408@stpeter.im>, <CAPvvaaLXAbFabnFjEEg7yvdbdA9yZ=M7j3pZDqpNek-wuER34A@mail.gmail.com>, <01c101cee7e7$88f12610$9ad37230$@co.in> <DUB127-W25DEC8932DC67BDEE203FAE0E30@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <DUB127-W25DEC8932DC67BDEE203FAE0E30@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:48:13 +0530
Message-ID: <002f01cee949$ef6967f0$ce3c37d0$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7n6sL8Tc1ouiH/TOCvMapu8hA3WwBXrwuQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.529250FC.005D, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Rules: SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 2
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.142
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
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: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:18:30 -0000

Herve,

I mailed in the another mail thread why Condorset fails for the given
candidates with detailed example. Please let me know your opinion on the
same.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hervé W. [mailto:h_o_w_@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:55 AM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Emil Ivov'; 'Peter St Andre, (stpeter)'
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec MTI after
> election? [was RE: Proposed Video Selection Process]
> 
> ________________________________
> > From: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
> 
> 
> > As the multiple codec alternative (candidate) exists and kind of
> > implicit coalition[1] allowed by IRV election mechanism, it is
> possible
> > for less than 50% folks supported codec alternative as a first
> > preference will be selected as point in
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting first example. How
> > this mechanism helps to achieve the better interop in the internet
> > which is our ultimate aim?
> 
> Would you find a Condorset method more acceptable? Harald Alvestrand
> suggested that.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09928.html
> 
> > Note 1:  Implicit coalition – 2nd preference will become the voters
> > choice after the 1st preference is eliminated
> 
> 
> - Hervé 		 	   		  =

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email