IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Fri, 16 December 2011 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.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 CF28721F86EC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:46:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.466, 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 jyKC6ERWdtNg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8979121F86C3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.58] (unverified [71.202.147.60]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 7033-1743317 for multiple; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:46:24 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:46:08 -0800
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <CB0FD355.35772%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
In-Reply-To: <4EEA6977.9070104@mozilla.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 71.202.147.60
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (71.202.147.60) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
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: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:46:28 -0000

I'm certainly not in the position to argue your point :-).  Fine.
When having a "lack of objection" formulation, I wouldn't even comment
negatively on a reasonably set deadline.
Stephan 

On 12.15.2011 13:41 , "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
wrote:

>> "It is desirable to have a mandatory codec that is supported in the
>> majority of newly deployed browsers.  Accordingly, the WG will wait for
>>an
>> indication of consensus among the major browser vendors for a mandatory
>> codec of their choice.  If no such indication is received in a
>
>I'd be willing live with a lack of objections, instead of requiring
>affirmative consensus. Historically it has been very hard to get the
>latter, even about much less contentious technologies, but there is some
>precedent that people are willing to voice the former.
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email