Re: [rtcweb] Stephan Wenger's choices

[Maik Merten <[e-mail]>]

Stephan,

thanks for elaborating, this indeed paints a clearer picture on how the 
statements seem to diverge on the surface.


Best regards,

Maik

Am 28.12.2013 18:22, schrieb Stephan Wenger:
> Maik,
> Please don¹t forget that in the IETF process statements like this are my
> own, whereas in W3C, I clearly and expressly was representing my then
> employer and was bound by in-house guidance (and so were most people
> presenting opinions).  W3C is a membership organization and the IETF is
> not--different rules apply.
> Clearer?
> Stephan
>
> On 12/28/13, 8:59 AM, "Maik Merten" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Am 27.12.2013 21:13, schrieb Stephan Wenger:
>>>   6.
>>>
>>>      All entities MUST support H.261
>>>
>>>       1.
>>>
>>>          Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *No*
>>>
>>>       2.
>>>
>>>          Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>>>          summarize them: *misapplying yesterdays¹ technology just for
>>>          compliance with *³requirements² of a *business model that is not
>>>          mine does not make sense to me.*
>>
>>
>> This on the surface looks like you changed your mind a bit on H.261 over
>> your position regarding H.261 in the <video> tag (
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf ). Clearly, time has
>> passed and H.261 hasn't become any less old and crusty, but I wonder how
>> H.261 in a video-communication context is a "misapplication", while it
>> apparently qualified as fallback codec for <video>.
>>
>> Is there something regarding WebRTC that is especially troublesome for
>> H.261?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Maik
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>