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

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com> Fri, 05 December 2014 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gmartincocher@blackberry.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 147951AD60D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 jhwNMaMQQJVb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p01.blackberry.com (smtp-p01.blackberry.com [208.65.78.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CE11AD605 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct102cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.202]) by mhs211cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Dec 2014 14:24:55 -0500
Received: from XMB111CNC.rim.net ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by XCT102CNC.rim.net ([fe80::2066:5d4f:8c45:af55%17]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 14:24:54 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AQHQDyewEeqVo81nB0ShjNtLfXarlJx+j7gAgAAgMwD//7RIMIAAge4A///FiXCAAQTWgIABqNgwgABbTwD//6xiUA==
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:24:53 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359CE7@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
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> <547FA924.3000504@mozilla.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35455C@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <548052E7.1050007@alvestrand.no> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359C76@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <548203E2.90602@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <548203E2.90602@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Tullh9jogqT1towyGJdmjxiEKUw
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: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:24:57 -0000

The audio archive clearly showed that individual were talking on behalf of their company; but if you dismiss that, I am ok to have individuals answering.

I have not seen many email stating ""I'm okay with X if and only if Y". can you point that to me, in the context of this proposal with these categories?

I think what is ridiculous is to push more actors to be a webRTC-compatible endpoint, it is unclear they will just avoid one codec, they might remove much more from their apps/devices/browsers etc. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:14 PM
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On 12/5/14 10:56, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
> Is that a google position or just an assumption?

We speak as individuals.


> Assuming browsers have to implement both and that this question is out of the way.

I was about to make the same point that Harald did, but he beat me to
it: the questions were asked together because the nature of the compromise was, for many people, "I'm okay with X if and only if Y". 
Characterizing this as an unconditional acceptance of one without the other is ridiculous.

/a