Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 00:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.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 5F26D1ACEF6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:22:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 KotsKQPqxwIr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A1881A6FC8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.5.151] (173-164-120-204-Oregon.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.164.120.204]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAE2AF22D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:21:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <547FA924.3000504@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:21:56 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <547F60A8.3080302@alvestrand.no> <27F838F1-326D-48BD-B553-6FE993E5C34F@apple.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF354465@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF354465@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/TL2UuFrapm7dh2u-xp2Fn3kO3E0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:22:00 -0000

Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
> a) How can the group composed by a vast majority of non-browser vendors force a decision on browser vendors against their statements?
>
> b)I don't think there was enough discussion on "non-browser" entities. I believe the two topics (browser/non-browser) should have been separated. There was quite a few objections on a non-browser having to implement both codecs, at the meeting and on the list prior to the meeting.

Let me see if I can follow the logic here. There was a "vast majority of 
non-browser vendors" making this decision, but the overwhelming 
consensus achieved in the hum in Honolulu does not demonstrate that 
objections from non-browser vendors are "in the rough".