IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 06 November 2013 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F25C11E8171 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:08:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I9mTMlp67zOq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4654C11E810D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id as1so16919464iec.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:08:02 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qazEAS7iSjzwi0/Fd8QwC4OP9/5SLWr4eFaFpf7pC9U=; b=kpxEdmgj9rqKROfyo36/QR2kEIZDvKyDvH3wtfX+J0uHWlaGCuuYmF0odFPt/jFLO/ SzSpNUtQsmj/CcptJbG+MhxIDsaptANsJaSMha7e0SR5rnjbAl8dNPoYLn3QWXJ/V6p4 zFQUpPUwM0OWquxpM0Kyk3Sxuivf/T32m7nZV7ub/hv6O8IlZdCh1XqXviRVKuefDcsB BQf/xNnPJOrZmWPuszLf2g3VW3QL9d1+peI45g7vn2bLZ2DWr/oXPytsYm1kG/jHx4Ps UZlSbURRlsTbJQySHsNBcmM8POIrg1lDtMGH9k3oLun+9cjKk/Ueybu3GcCnF0TNPQXO lxyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkfZK0tfvr9K/V4GAhf4f2cn90EKzO9o0VpQQWPsaJ0ZEUM/1mjBCbeU5epfYY/jZAtQd7G
X-Received: by 10.50.61.35 with SMTP id m3mr1583792igr.56.1383728882119; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:08:02 -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 ft2sm13106913igb.5.2013.11.06.01.08.00 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:08:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <527A06EF.2070007@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 04:07:59 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com> <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com> <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A108AAB@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <CAMwTW+g+iHWCkoUonjYFi6OrSNcSQZX2X4GtKG5Ae4Ubzv0LtA@mail.gmail.com> <A869F270-C9B9-48EE-9A71-75BA9F2684EC@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <A869F270-C9B9-48EE-9A71-75BA9F2684EC@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:08:09 -0000

     I don't understand why we are playing these semantic games.

     If we mandate multiple codecs as MTI, and "something goes wrong" 
(be it an IPR issue, security issue, etc) we have the ability remove 
that codec from MTI without breaking interoperability. If we only 
mandate a single codec as MTI, there is no such ability.

Gili

On 06/11/2013 3:53 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 9:53 , bryandonnovan@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> "real IPR issue" :  ability to compile and distribute an h.264 codec without getting a license and paying royalties.
>>
>> "not real IPR issue" : claims made against Opus by Qualcomm and Huawei
> where does Nokia's statement fall, in your opinion?
>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Define "real IPR issue".
>>
>> Markus
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email