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, 5 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.