IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Sat, 06 December 2014 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 434F91A07BD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:01:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 iRJozWAAfbYT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1221A0181 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z10so1985701pdj.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:01:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=/+U04pGa6JVhuw1qlM9HVeZ6StYlksOFfdHXKOe88JU=; b=gHj3wdXPzIPCn6lkgwWsAxkOqBs+oe8ar/D0xPjyu0XZl3lD/JZcH0+GUe1xfpUdDQ d6L+kzfsd5bMkBpN3Y3aW4GlDdaZLvIz7jECT+ODJ/ia2X8dYFGI42V/tqGRLiyMyFIr 50jGSUaeVRsn4u97Z1QBoqbDCdjyXPlcP+OyQxhCZOTkdAotX+6A2Mkq45/9bTiO3Uq2 0DcAhHDxr7Tf/oTJZC4oxT8bpPCwlRVJvuMh0cN2AoQQItqcYVrOiDW8zo0KVNIQvOX7 k8I1D+l7GFiIaeYcI85MB48uH2d1tqGqy9d9e2TpZagTfRUeJQnvTCpZw9Z2rJhdXgOq cDtg==
X-Received: by 10.70.54.1 with SMTP id f1mr1913111pdp.63.1417845698397; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:01:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.203.138.154] (mobile-166-171-251-160.mycingular.net. [166.171.251.160]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id do16sm10873400pac.48.2014.12.05.22.01.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:01:07 -0800 (PST)
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <FCDCD184-549C-4111-ACDB-7C466A2EE9D1@apple.com> <548260D2.2020703@nostrum.com> <A5667955-21FC-4596-A86A-0902408BCC12@apple.com> <94C89195-99FC-4807-B00B-1A94701C8724@gmail.com> <CACrD=+8GuiCOH=BwJyUvoQ3ajDgdrPvkTK6gC9hx6Y3ozg=cRg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CACrD=+8GuiCOH=BwJyUvoQ3ajDgdrPvkTK6gC9hx6Y3ozg=cRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A095EDAC-E719-43D7-97A4-9AFE4AEECE8F@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B435)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:01:02 -0800
To: Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/SdsjkZ1nFYQJE2JRxvQRQvrWHpM
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 06:01:40 -0000

On Dec 5, 2014, at 9:27 PM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont@gmail.com
> 
> There's a difference between 'not represented' and 'holding a minority opinion'.

[BA] Rather than applying equally to all RTCWEB implementers, the dual MTI requirement is applied unequally to implementers of a JS API specification created in another SDO.  The W3C gets to decide the requirements for implementers of their specifications, not the IETF. So no, this isn't just an IETF consensus issue.

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email