[rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
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 4ADAC21E815A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lT7nP3PgRrPR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.unify.com (mx11.unify.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1281621E8155 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by mx11.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 54BD11EB8552 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:18:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.69]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:18:12 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
Thread-Index: Ac7aMdpANg5/0KzyRDSTwYCn1us4cw==
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:18:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17C2EFD0@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:18:19 -0000

It seems to me that making both VP8 and H264 MTI might be a good option for WebRTC in terms of maximizing interoperability and would be a better decision coming out of this IETF meeting than no decision at all.

Can we have some clarification as to whether any consensus call during this week's meeting will include this option?

Previously it was stated that the questions to be asked would be:

1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.


How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?

Regards
Andy