IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Fri, 20 December 2013 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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 0A69A1ADF73 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.556, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=no
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 2BVh-2e9TsXE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6321ADF6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id qd12so3520319ieb.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:34 -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:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=9Uh3m7sEiNxSfprzcrTw8CXUVZGcmV/Wy5cjsqJeW3I=; b=lqV7+U6wu/zKrZCGfJEkk/jnArA0WNj9c7bDmy5bd3qRejtA033o+ijuFemCuENIld vEK1hviThysk2YyF1O+JQQaLrXyR+hcVYIPfJcOglf3ZrwIHrtjv3yCqLTXeICDoG+aZ lnggPZF/lV6M4ih7zi9eNwh4j1M4EVVODS2DrvXwTaeX5sMoW/mjjTo9OkmZcTwbWepk 86q0imUhJvdFjSwBSff/fm7MqiO2EC9fZN2TpTfi2xCgWtqvDSUW6+dqOZNcsskO6H7F elKSAMVPR9aelBFC8FVH4bqTQfI20mTZGqJpi0yWh8XYC+QLPl0m2EknjVseH4iqtaQF kpJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+14DhairY6dg/fljAg4S6VRRyO3QHQhm1gMJMNnXW0VBJK46BT1dvr2jjoaTFwYBrOmOl
X-Received: by 10.50.253.229 with SMTP id ad5mr9088547igd.42.1387562194611; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v2sm11311127igz.3.2013.12.20.09.56.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:56:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52B484AB.5020102@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:55:55 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060507040708060700080503"
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:56:39 -0000

Think about how silly that statement is. You're asking us to drop video 
MTI in order to be interoperable with telephones without screens (which 
are on the verge of disappearing) but, in dropping MTI we would actually 
be *reducing* interoperability between WebRTC devices, not increasing it.

WebRTC is about web devices first, legacy devices second. At least, it 
is for me.

Gili

On 20/12/2013 12:26 PM, David Singer wrote:
> There are some things to be said for no MTI:
>
> * (we have had this in 3GPP): once something is mandatory, it's hard 
> to un-mandate it.  "what about backward compatibility with older 
> systems?".  3GPP is taking many years to move H.263 from mandated to 
> recommended to optional.  the world moves on, and mandates stay.
> * it is functionally equivalent to an MTI that is not respected (and 
> more honest)
> * there are audio-only devices (anyone remember those things called 
> 'telephones'?)
> * and finally: Santa is not allowed to use video (FAA ruling, it 
> seems, sad), and videophones in cars may one day be frowned on
>
> Happy hols, everyone
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email