Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5385B11E80DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Yj7fUc9EkcO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7486D11E809C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-45f8.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-45f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.69.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r2E4gUks024755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:42:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51415535.9040203@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:42:29 -0400
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daryl Malas <D.Malas@cablelabs.com>
References: <FEA80D86BEEC134D88CA45E53A0D3408180DA31B@EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEA80D86BEEC134D88CA45E53A0D3408180DA31B@EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 130.129.69.248 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 14 Mar 2013 04:42:33 -0000

On 3/14/13 00:18, Daryl Malas wrote:
>  If VP8 is the only allowable codec

We are not having, and will never have, a "mandatory not to implement" 
conversation.

/a