IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Mon, 08 December 2014 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 E882E1ACDAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:51:08 -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 Qm0KupLtgQUY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:51:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875E01ACD9F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id tp5so5088945ieb.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:51:06 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZVk/Vwl+VMbTC1GQOPlKp4cjqcUpCMfJOaZtItknPEs=; b=QwcHhhdKjLYAga+IRUfiwHztWEzLP7usxqLbrlSH/T57nHy5Bd1zl59o58MN5rA9UT DEJ3egHj/Zc6JWXoAlGdMNj6KOV/sIhe7Rzur1kXjTQ5BsqHRc/mfKf2VWT0ziDgJ77O LYbQLUXQb9o/PGrSpeUDpuCDy1hVZDiH0bhEEuND0i6p0xtO1VaPeanGfBEhJ2mOWwp4 hg+7eq3jd8TkiCpzzIgSsZsRtoAJkxgBDIYTnhSJWa2+mdttq0wYIQ9FNt33tUm2e4ZM 9UBRa5CrE55/1R76zI7vZL34RkOp5f0tS5zwjMz9z/x6SdnEqk+CZTHwQlbLJ4+rbBK4 M9GQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY7x1qwF2EGS1HGa0v2QS8m5s9GKl5jq1586pzrtDmnLfrZoPRhiKntJyv14PMR2XEcMuf
X-Received: by 10.107.162.134 with SMTP id l128mr12388704ioe.65.1418064665912; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c1sm4218774igo.17.2014.12.08.10.51.04 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5485F318.2090707@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:51:04 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <5485CC5B.2030104@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxtE1b-U_3oabjor=0jG5L4Z_9Rf_1cXsGQPXjp12x=Z0w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998A6A5@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998A6A5@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/R9I_bNS53Pn5bJ1DjniPjTwhkTA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:51:09 -0000

On 12/8/14, 11:34 AM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> I think it’s pretty clear from my statements in the IETF session on this
> topic and on this list that I don’t support having two MTI  video codecs
> for any WebRTC entity and I don’t think it is technically justified. But
> I state this here formally.

To those (not just Andrew) who are opposed to two MTI video codecs: were 
you also opposed to two MTI audio codecs? I'm trying to understand the 
differences between audio and video here...

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email