Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 22 December 2013 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 081EF1AE35B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 9LS316Ak3Edf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CA81AE358 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:23:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id j1so19245600iga.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:23:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=iplX5bOjO+eDdFoX1c3Tqv2IdrbIrBgrgEEehttmCSs=; b=MsjODPjYkp+TEZy6pEALkr/npTlExKUSwXA4WBZFiOXTO7SzNOzcIR3OGDp5MTezeZ JwWPy1uIuFmTZk505WK1yq6+WWJaj3pp6VWpuoNQcU9780QzUMjL10+emJh+amZiU0vb m24ngBUf1jk6tqhw/4Q0UJHSNqEj9y5lB4/wreOldwZsD0A/ASSmHQAYuWCSJGp/sP2q K6mXhN55nc1TJYUatCobDHBCzqTFc1sCK353JBShNFSX65F2tESShzvgqTAcUGIWvF0H brlo/6QCP/Ox7Pm7gVrVOms4hI6f/2HdtSmXDD9Xi0Mu013l5BPOjVJ+vc1N97H6cApf sxWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLGtRVAApEI8tgMZVZqYvqMZ262fi2JV8PgN6MmnUUCkE+/QE1fz1/wY3DpG9vCy+e3fHx
X-Received: by 10.50.108.235 with SMTP id hn11mr17039189igb.0.1387722179974; Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.22] (CPE185933969e6f-CM185933969e6c.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [173.34.178.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l7sm19647443igx.2.2013.12.22.06.22.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Dec 2013 06:22:58 -0800 (PST)
References: <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131215075757.GB3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AE54F8.5070300@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBNqE25O+BNLboXDrJ1ypp26uRAw8ehwtyor9gJccpuzGw@mail.gmail.com> <52AE759C.7020209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMjTGs41t7y=xvaLdn4i63HxC2YQUkrd-itq=VkuKvpTA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi> <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org> <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com> <52B484AB.5020102@bbs.darktech.org> <CAOJ7v-0QcMsZ+nxG+kP99zE-+VUiFesGh05agwsnmaMCapJSmA@mail.gmail.com> <52B4B85F.2070209@dcrocker.net> <CAOJ7v-21zRcW=mRdec+92qNikUFZNi_UqHqvFpOfC7-MAjvY=w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-21zRcW=mRdec+92qNikUFZNi_UqHqvFpOfC7-MAjvY=w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-B701540E-D57C-415F-AE46-261403271DF1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <177B31B7-F512-4588-8210-D6CA8DC28FF4@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a)
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:22:58 -0500
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?
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: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:23:05 -0000

This seems very sensible

> On Dec 22, 2013, at 0:28, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> 
> I hope that it will be even simpler than that; merely a statement indicating that devices that can't send or receive a given media type need not concern themselves with the MTI codecs of that type.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2013 1:32 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>> I do think we should have an affordance for audio-only devices that
>>> don't need to concern themselves with video codecs, but that seems like
>>> a spec wording issue, and not a reason to throw out the idea of MTI.
>> 
>> 
>> What you are implying is multiple usage profiles, or configurations, with specifics sets of MTIs for each.
>> 
>> Ideally, these should be built on top of each other, starting with a core, minimal capability and then adding capabilities on top.
>> 
>> Pessimally, these would be non-overlapping configurations.
>> 
>> 
>> d/
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb