IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Wed, 31 October 2012 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 A34EA21F85C2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.937
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.663, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXJOaYMqBmFL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NA01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-by2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFE921F855F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2FFO11FD016.protection.gbl (10.1.15.204) by BY2FFO11HUB027.protection.gbl (10.1.14.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.545.8; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:53 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BY2FFO11FD016.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.1.14.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.545.8 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:52 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.52]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:26 +0000
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question
Thread-Index: AQHNtgBjxnCRTWxEdEm8PEWsc927e5fQxgiAgAGrLwCAADRjAIAAMu8AgAAZufA=
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:26 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160FD9FB@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <509055C4.6060500@nostrum.com> <FDBFA77C7400C74F87BC297393B53E352596BC07@BY2PRD0710MB354.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20121031044328.GP6812@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20121031044328.GP6812@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(51704002)(377454001)(5343655001)(44976002)(50986001)(49866001)(74662001)(46102001)(4396001)(33656001)(47446002)(54316001)(54356001)(47776002)(31966008)(16406001)(47736001)(53806001)(74502001)(47976001)(48376001)(51856001)(50466001); DIR:OUT; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 06515DA04B
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:26:56 -0000

> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:43 AM
>
> Didn't this group form precisely because the hopefully competent business
> people have so far only produced a diverse number of unacceptable
> solutions and people *really* wanted something better than that?

No, I don't believe that was the motivation for forming the RTCWEB working group.
 
> The choice of MTI codec here isn't a commercial decision, it's a technical one.
> If we make the right choice, we will ensure the broadest number of
> implementors have the option to use it, and the broadest number of
> implementations will be interoperable.

No, we won't. No matter what this WG decides, people who are not in the room will ultimately make the decision as to what business model they wish to pursue and what business risks they are willing to take... and thus whether or not their implementation will interoperate with others.
 	
Matthew Kaufman

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status