Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

"Richard Shockey" <> Sun, 19 August 2012 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD2821F8595 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.505
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.760, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUUBlkWw22DO for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 69C8F21F8458 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 12573 invoked by uid 0); 19 Aug 2012 18:49:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 19 Aug 2012 18:49:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=3zAihM9hFDLIkrDK6bY6w2v3Rhg55f+ovxWKB70ZKlA=; b=CidY6piku1xuJ7VNTLF6w/Um6vZ4XAlygHa7iHxtjHl5reluBDFrszLIOZddyf/atdVA2b9Kd8WrEzR12G6hy8Efi5OT1Y2VZEzCEeM0eJzG+fEEZplfSafpkfVga7Yc;
Received: from [] (port=53054 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1T3AYe-00041E-Bn; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:49:08 -0600
From: "Richard Shockey" <>
To: "'Stephan Wenger'" <>, "'Monty Montgomery'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:49:05 -0400
Message-ID: <001501cd7e3b$4fca7150$ef5f53f0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHNe9KcnBvEU9mQJkq36trv7RuVjpdf6QaAgAAwOYD//7RmAIABsEjg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:49:34 -0000

We have heard both voices.  The two camps are approximately of the same
strength.  Even when looking at browser market share, neither camp is an
overwhelming "winner".  Which is why I suggested in Vancouver that it may be
time to follow the WhatWG and W3C's lead and leave the mandatory video codec
selection to the browser vendors, not to a standards community that, as this
discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with commercial
realities.  Leaving it to the browser vendors knowing that, at least
initially, we may have interop problems.

[RS> ] I suggest that this is not a can you can kick down the road
indefinitely. At some point we will have to make a decision since the
ultimate goal is a globally interoperable service.  

I said in Vancouver that it is unacceptable to allow the commercial
considerations of an industry operating under one business model (for
example open source), to block standards development going in a certain
direction, if there are others operating under another business model (close
source and $$$ for licensing) and they want a different direction.
I will continue to say so.  And will object quite noisily if such an
argument would be decisive in the IETF's decision making process, one way or

>> H 264 since it is nearly universally deployed.
>You've lost me here.  I can't use it.  Oh sure, I have the code-- I'm 
>just not allowed to do anything with it, and MPEG-LA won't sell me a 
>license because I don't track downstream.

So start tracking downstream.  Your business model does not allow for it?
Change it!  

>rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb mailing list