IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt

Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Sat, 20 October 2012 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF0D21F8840 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ItSAZK5cM0Zi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E598021F8837 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.229] (unknown [10.10.155.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5AE148096 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5082DEAD.9030206@matthew.at>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:26:05 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070503060208060506010102"
Subject: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 20 Oct 2012 17:26:06 -0000

Harald Alvestrand [harald@alvestrand.no]*:*

>At the moment, if we want open, good and  developed in cooperation with a standards body, it seems that we only 
get 2 out of 3. At most.

For video, H.264 is available in open source implementations and the 
specification is available to read by all, the quality is more than good 
enough, and it was developed in cooperation with a recognized standards 
body.

I think you're looking for a word other than "open" to explain what you 
might not like about it... but the alternative you've proposed meets 
even fewer of these, and I would claim that the last is more important 
than the missing one you're thinking of.

Matthew Kaufman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email