[rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <miconda@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3CA1A873E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DRe_0zF-PFeF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC6191A8737 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ex7so13375974wid.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ml3aqIjs8YpBxdjhb/ZthqC/D4Kq70xolynRisbKumg=; b=MB+FvxNVtsE0zPBViGaC4lkhisV0kIn+kgVw1GJq4DshCvRYFRdYjrmdtq0cNaWzHA KIkTYDHfCtbRzKD6e7XTOvNuuEh1koLwErg6dUxATfTNEClUCiFsrLwa3Iax2LOO7Dm9 ewQWkkkgLymnD8xwAynKBwh/lb6ePyOi+syweitbTgBvJa+lfqLrfqDXYp5T4sgG6x9A /UKw0GUF4JiJZrVmM+mk8PJaq89SwLk9TTHlqd1UxHJjHp/aIcZXiAd8XZGRxj8KsPmw CZ2Y9PvUnU5VMQImqFmUkFmGqXYcxRGzAMuSxReG1jNM9UNUzz7gxKke5TVRkeSpZgiB zU/A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id dw7mr4191772wib.6.1418758760637; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Saturns-MBP.fritz.box ([2a01:4f8:a0:638e::2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n5sm3304415wic.6.2014. for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54908A65.1010705@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:39:17 +0100
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/MrgZ_kzU3nIXovpfOioVBOd0ZUg
Subject: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miconda@gmail.com
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, 16 Dec 2014 19:39:23 -0000

With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can anyone clarify
the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG chairs
stating what is the role of the current discussions, specially to the
initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the room: mti
codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:

   - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html

My understanding was that it is about clarifying what happened during
the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the proposal. I
get the feeling that many understood it differently, being the call on
consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply stating there
position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
discussion by Sean.

For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit subject,
including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.

Which side got it wrong here?


Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda