Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 930571A8FD3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zRm5JawhWFYA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857F11A8F4A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so1688610wgg.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:08:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=FBh2xiuqswB0YdXGcFEdX+ViJ7ip2n+iNQyqciopBvk=; b=eLOKL2PiQdAFjlsihbus1M7uqgUhhvpECB6xa5J7b6MY0M1wHQuOA8dTENpaAWjCGb DjJ1mmLxrvYeV8vQZHp0KXHb+EGNcgbp6ac0ETUBRSlmcJoEeQkIW81yh/cimyYDGFsn twDmO+BZW1m4gIyzBmFYXlza1D7osZXJWBE3OYf0m695FSAO/X7OeDDqMH7ZormUzDwE cGjAfVqy+lGKPYICeEpgUps29HTlS2FRuj5r9mvvHv0W0PHSvijk4IZTLje9y3L8FRoj i75wl/Z3JvZ+CHG0kDzzMUyoGuu3ezr2PJpODEX79xVTY5+Rnq/f4fb9knKiMUy3W4D6 +H9Q==
X-Received: by 10.194.161.202 with SMTP id xu10mr85799wjb.4.1418152101345; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:08:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.211.131 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:08:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com>
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <54873575.3030804@nostrum.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:08:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dskg9CQF9qw3oktcEGySdWJZCF6sXHXdgAnwc8ph1iVtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1f9c3d04040509cd44e6
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/KihSRWxHn_0PQ4sKrbxSeE5sEVM
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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 19:08:24 -0000

>
> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the room,
> whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to implement both codecs, or whether they
> conveniently think they don’t need to, and it’s just a problem for other
> people to handle.
>
> Honestly, a +1 for “those other people should do it” is meaningless.
>

That's a fair point. I'm guessing the vast majority of people answering on
the mailing list only plan to implement one codec because they are
non-browser implementors.

Gili

[BA] I agree that the vast majority of people answering probably believe
that the requirements don't apply to the non-browser category, but actually
the proposal is that dual MTI does apply to non-browsers, right? It's just
the WebRTC-compatible endpoints that are exempt.  So it's actually worse
than "those other people should do it" - it's really "I intend to ignore
the requirements myself and pretend that they don't apply to me while
holding other people to  them".

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 12/9/14 11:32, David Singer wrote:
>
>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the room,
>> whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to...
>>
>
> Wait, you're pressing other companies for future product plans? With the
> implication that doing so is a prerequisite to participating in the
> discussion?
>
> That's a mighty sharp blade there. You might check where it's pointed.
>
> /a
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>