Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 50A991A0373 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 NjaNCmplLUe6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B48F1A0262 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB9G903k077254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:09:00 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <54871E9B.4010005@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:08:59 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <54867014.7000709@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998B463@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998B463@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GYAJrm8DSpfL0Q5AD5sj7VPynjI
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:09:08 -0000

On 12/8/14 22:46, Andrew Allen wrote:
> And the 3rd alternative is that we agree that we cannot agree on a single MTI video codec and let the market decide.

Wait... didn't this subthread start with your objecting to the proposal 
on the grounds that that it failed to meet some commitment to specify 
"an MTI codec"? How do you believe this alternative meets that commitment?

I'm sorry, you're grasping at straws so furiously that you can't even 
argue on the same side of the issue for very long -- but I guess that's 
to be expected when you're simply fast-forwarding through other people's 
old arguments that have been heard and considered by the group already.

It's hard to believe that this is anything but a clumsy attempt at 
targeted obstruction.

/a