Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.org>
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 D13281AE04D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 CFdgsavaE0eM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9221ADF72 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hm4so1382566wib.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YhBhUK5SV6Q47zfot+TEHVETKTw17LIqIZGsWkfH3Fw=; b=GkR5lSERCQ+zDg9p8g0TCuJuUIrbUIU1mr5DiAWHbTNuQHi89KnUiIa0Az0ja44yU4 N2cJkWa1IK1KjjTYdZ+ks63N+6FpU3QMha9Fwx2GZyl2EeFfja+ZtPQTgRStrlW6jD3c GCGUhO/+vJL/Y0Ilwrfkj/Vs4ZkloAeKALsXTyOe0xBtlXIXMbwk1f3+HfwXvZKw3XcL uRPByOeEUd5oCHzTmhe4dEeHPR2ZKnLzZUFOCJHBaLcWhEKX3HgcIutcZqS0jiD2TzK8 elHk9rgYHOWNyY77XK6QMTv/xRZo60DUB6K79Vt42AOBK17ayEgK8jg7khYnF8dlSEa7 Mfpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3sW/NOzxChg1VR0rbDtUQtArY9XhFowkuYt7WARdXdnahJ7nZwneHtnyypwXjqdnxt/T9
X-Received: by 10.194.78.141 with SMTP id b13mr21870568wjx.32.1385678658742; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from camionet.local ([2a01:e35:8a04:14f0:e0dc:6c8b:ed3a:af2e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w20sm85704773wia.5.2013.11.28.14.44.16 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5297C73F.6080600@jitsi.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:44:15 +0100
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>, <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org> <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>, <CAHp8n2mvebymnt_DgmHn310QY_Bgb-2oJyJhEeMxJCNz46ftZg@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W49AEA803256B7982E052D993EE0@phx.gbl> <5297C306.1070905@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <5297C306.1070905@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:44:22 -0000

On 28.11.13, 23:26, cowwoc wrote:
> On 28/11/2013 5:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> > if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
>> > supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL
>>
>>
>> [BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that
>> interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video,
>> the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today,
>> millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.
>>
>
> That's because servers are able to offer the same pre-recorded video in
> multiple formats. The same is not true for WebRTC where:
>
>   * There might not be a server.
>   * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.

The point is that solutions emerge.

SIP has been in exactly the same situation for a few years now and, last 
I checked, it was enjoying quite the popularity.


-- 
https://jitsi.org