Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 04 December 2014 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 BA4831AD460 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:08:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 6X39PEdmN2IL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBA71AD44A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85AD7C3585; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:08:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ce5U0nT32zJw; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:08:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.28.249.38] (unknown [74.125.57.89]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 509A37C358E; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:08:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <548086EE.4020404@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:08:14 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <20141204154332.5955730.14347.3231@blackberry.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141204154332.5955730.14347.3231@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070004080202040106080102"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/DvpyHr-Y2V4LS2vMfJPCrwrfrXY
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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, 04 Dec 2014 16:08:29 -0000

On 12/04/2014 04:43 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> A
> Harald
>
> To me you seem to be saying this was a very un IETF like political
> decision structured to gather enough votes to pass rather than one
> based on the usual technical merits of each proposal.

The amount of un-IETF-like behaviour around this decision is too large
to be captured in a single sentence.

My point is: *the proposals are not independent*.

The reasons for them not being independent are some of them technical,
some of them less so.

But arguing for "we should consider the proposals independently" is the
same thing as arguing for "we should consider the whole decision unmade
and start again with no decisions made".

Be careful what you ask for.