Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.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 B8C1F1AD359 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kI7DPrCRsbch for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-in6.apple.com (mail-out6.apple.com [17.151.62.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C371A1BCA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1415668827; x=2279582427; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wUbPFb6FIH3Rme8dsqxAhGmZWbQtJRwBB9l6V6pTYrw=; b=JFEbWq3g+V1OcFAmUGE/Wod7DCTk/lJtkxfoHKAPnCviLJ/Mtai34dJwdWllvoKs Ei/3AZbYDlwNlq9y+6JGJ8rg67sPR5EUvbVyphFN/VWxGJlbQeF73IbrJRtdgtQR P6mDOfT0ESmFIsE6R2QPEelghiM0zHQFyz+iAaIjO1TFFHXUGvQV+aUgY42jAEfp sUaOC9oZcxSXFiUWdG/wtCCxztpf/fxXXIABBL3qylFdpR4jJHRnmqNa0uKeBi29 ud8MeGTcy7LLpCGUub3FhtJ/8VrxeEgohhzFIjPCIzZPwHRDHLIXR0hz6dEehui6 ypELU2WCdLhrhEa+EX8E9g==;
Received: from relay7.apple.com (relay7.apple.com [17.128.113.101]) by mail-in6.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id BF.2B.05330.B5461645; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e15-f791b6d0000014d2-5f-5461645bee4f
Received: from singda.apple.com (singda.apple.com [17.201.24.241]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 96.83.23239.04461645; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141111011054.GR8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:20:28 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E18B79D1-D8C8-4A17-A2F0-93BDAAFED698@apple.com>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <1D5CFB04-2CCB-424C-A364-1CAA05E84D12@apple.com> <20141111011054.GR8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCYqhudkhhicKDT0mLzixvsFmv/tbM7 MHn8apvL7LFkyU+mAKYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsErow//c9ZCw5wVrzvbmNvYDzB3sXIySEhYCIx 5+sMRghbTOLCvfVsXYxcHEIC+xglTs+9wQRTNLXvAzNEYgKTxJyrK8E6mAX0JHZc/8UKYvMK GEgs2bWJGcQWFjCXuPPhP9gGNgFViQdzjoHVcwLFn+67BFbPAhSfMO8vM8QcYYnvj++xQNja EssWvmaGmGkjcX3qb7B6IYEdjBJd53hBbBEBCYk37x8zQxwnL/Hhw3F2kOMkBF6ySlzbPJ9l AqPQLCT3zUJy3ywkOxYwMq9iFMpNzMzRzcwz00ssKMhJ1UvOz93ECAri6XaiOxjPrLI6xCjA wajEw6vhnxgixJpYVlyZe4hRmoNFSZyXKwQoJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgXFq 5rLZrjzMza9TMyzrsp9ue3JXWX3vhOMGfzU3JygfCBRQeXDnzeqgrCkvtzjMLLr28Nj6HZE2 L2Wec6l+ORG/zDX3GMuxDhbnr57HbSY2TI3KzI/wND8zOeCa8FWjjmDd1f2bVzELib55x9e7 pJOtfRL/u/IAy3dLzN7s0y3esWtmesbcI01KLMUZiYZazEXFiQBd6NB9QwIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUieFLio65jSmKIwb61bBabX9xgt1j7r53d gcnjV9tcZo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGX86X/OWnCAs+J9dxt7A+MJ9i5GTg4JAROJ qX0fmCFsMYkL99azdTFycQgJTGCSmHN1JSNIgllAT2LH9V+sIDavgIHEkl2bwBqEBcwl7nz4 DzaITUBV4sGcY2D1nEDxp/sugdWzAMUnzPvLDDFHWOL743ssELa2xLKFr5khZtpIXJ/6G6xe SGAHo0TXOV4QW0RAQuLN+8dQx8lLfPhwnH0CI/8sJCfNQnLSLCRjFzAyr2IUKErNSaw010ss KMhJ1UvOz93ECAq6hsLUHYyNy60OMQpwMCrx8Gr4J4YIsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuGtTwAK8aYk VlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES53WMjg0REkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MLZdqY2pLZ5kouaV 3Pc+7/jx3qrYVj/36P2hJ98fXTDxb2zQUv/0AO3QxY38rIv+lLvMMgt8sLS1YHHKye2lpm/q j9aJP1T4/L+Gd/svz4QJ9zZadanzb1q3avfCavHZOnn2veaVO7Zrx8vJyM3L9f5z8bhDQ8lF xY0Hw46Wp/VYdTXkJ3MHKrEUZyQaajEXFScCABiD2Hg2AgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Gc-7ZFuQp3KxxBqIB0nbIspVyTI
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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, 11 Nov 2014 01:20:30 -0000

On Nov 10, 2014, at 17:10 , Ron <ron@debian.org>; wrote:

> His option guarantees that anyone implementing only their preferred
> codec will be able to interop with any compliant implementation,
> though it may not be able to do so with another non-compliant
> implementation that similarly opted out of supporting that codec.

I am sorry, I don’t get it.  The spec. defines “WebRTC-compatible endpoint”

A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is capable of
      successfully communicating with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to
      meet some requirements of a WebRTC endpoint.  This may limit where
      in the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the
      security guarantees that it offers to others.

but says nothing about it being ‘non-compliant’.  So anyone can say “I claim that this is compliant to the spec.” (as a webrtc-compatible endpoint) — and it might not interoperate. Basically, this proposal assigns different names to the devices that implement both, and those that implement only one or none, but does that really further the cause of interoperability?

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.