Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 EA6BD1AE01E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:44:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 XkYib6lJmQ3Q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s34.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s34.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.109]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC621ACCE7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W106 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s34.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:43:53 -0800
X-TMN: [xLYOcufVeB2cI0bv4JB7ZU+lZT8b8RFvrxDvIzoZncc=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W106FB8C3C3D786719B310A293D50@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_19ec846f-4d98-4e20-800a-9aa4f9de074b_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:43:52 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <e5bq99dg3h6e82mnsn6k21aunc9eqlvc7q@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl>, <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com>, <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com>, <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net>, <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com>, <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca>, <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com>, <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl>, <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>, <6mkp9912042i9gkg87fc3ji8g9tkv6uqrh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>, <529CEAA6.9000501@librevideo.org>, <e5bq99dg3h6e82mnsn6k21aunc9eqlvc7q@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2013 02:43:53.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[815ECC80:01CEEFD1]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 02:44:02 -0000

 > I think it is highly relevant whether the mandatory-to-implement codec supports two people in typical German households communicate via video in sign language...
 
[BA] This isn't just an issue for Germany.   An inability to support sign language would be "highly relevant" to compliance with the proposed Section 255/508 revision in the US.  
 
From: http://www.access-board.gov/attachments/article/490/draft-rule.pdf, Section 408.8: 
 
"408.8 Video Communication.  Where ICT that provides two way voice communication includes real time video functionality, the quality of the video shall be sufficient to support communication using sign language."