Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sun, 22 December 2013 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 0481C1AE18F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, 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 1W9_ro-WOgQs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59AD1AE18C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jw12so2381911veb.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=uhS3yz4pz4gEQSUhtB+u5kCNCrjQ/3eK0ZDrun6MC2Y=; b=cdvkPXXD/B7QFs5kWuwK62FyC+CX0lkLAUCprK1wuPk95JkuxHaMViGclgSCJ2DYNk 2Riy3BDNH3wbsOUNdj8qWQ1qc+WEOci5Ff0JvYYETZzzh81tX3TQOjtMz7J8YzTBSdb2 WUBLY+RPfJ9ay1qOfjXx/23AH+H1y3q/Spqp623PNsbEglIT8LPi0j49ozbCvPaVXS8x vibMNSfIk3GF/l/5IMgGuWNg5iEZLqaUt+4Ro/Tckb8a/D9wsTde6ZTQlz1VBdtk34Di tDAIzu/PtZK7rLwy37dL+1m0isOWYLB6WGzROr1DmL08RlQapmQko1xvqKKziZf39rDG qjqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=uhS3yz4pz4gEQSUhtB+u5kCNCrjQ/3eK0ZDrun6MC2Y=; b=MkL4ut7uOep1LzK3I/JRQQ6l7+6aW04x+zcW60niVIGaIhB52edltoW7JnNaWJ0yQV wk3FXlF7DKqzGgU69NGM/jlg8neAGVX2jYBOl7WUOeWrc/OTfNvGuyuDTdYbVXsafjS2 wYrkp34AiBZFbcZ1zjctMB0jGiiF2hh2KWXpdpQeSRAWsH8mQy1eqEAXbvsMdTpUWXxd fLPImzuuX2t7WPdZdpDG6P+oZWN8ht1blLq/FwtpRpTPMODzQe/EWET9HWFytFoVaPIK UDuEpyxcrCodYnYajypNSzOkeSXhCIhFqIoADMbrJnMAA4AYiv/9FbU1Fp5hGNyJKGeq hfwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQ76Y3CUjGPPlhBqF9qz9dG8GbLzAMhQqdmJ7I+euBWoj5WOgBFErKntEZQANDU6GKPHqPuv65bm9BYRenuBxSIVeuGDGCZ1WUPnNrButkzDOOUFtK3UCe/esKA1ASTA6IuDCndpkLS+Ckxj7A68s8qLKyhXoezP5ZXi2zQ8PlU9Aebm74zA8BfZ6eFybogVVHeOzd
X-Received: by 10.58.95.97 with SMTP id dj1mr4782865veb.21.1387690121910; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.53.74 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52B4B85F.2070209@dcrocker.net>
References: <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131215075757.GB3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AE54F8.5070300@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBNqE25O+BNLboXDrJ1ypp26uRAw8ehwtyor9gJccpuzGw@mail.gmail.com> <52AE759C.7020209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMjTGs41t7y=xvaLdn4i63HxC2YQUkrd-itq=VkuKvpTA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi> <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org> <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com> <52B484AB.5020102@bbs.darktech.org> <CAOJ7v-0QcMsZ+nxG+kP99zE-+VUiFesGh05agwsnmaMCapJSmA@mail.gmail.com> <52B4B85F.2070209@dcrocker.net>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:28:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-21zRcW=mRdec+92qNikUFZNi_UqHqvFpOfC7-MAjvY=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6d8ed8c67d4304ee18c87e"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?
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: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 05:28:47 -0000

I hope that it will be even simpler than that; merely a statement
indicating that devices that can't send or receive a given media type need
not concern themselves with the MTI codecs of that type.


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 12/20/2013 1:32 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>> I do think we should have an affordance for audio-only devices that
>> don't need to concern themselves with video codecs, but that seems like
>> a spec wording issue, and not a reason to throw out the idea of MTI.
>>
>
>
> What you are implying is multiple usage profiles, or configurations, with
> specifics sets of MTIs for each.
>
> Ideally, these should be built on top of each other, starting with a core,
> minimal capability and then adding capabilities on top.
>
> Pessimally, these would be non-overlapping configurations.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>