Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@unina.it> Tue, 28 January 2014 09:54 UTC
Return-Path: <spromano@unina.it>
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 22C491A0361 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:54:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, 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 qu5iyaOxxZ7k for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.unina.it (smtp2.unina.it [192.132.34.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677191A0360 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:54:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1-160-241-11.dynamic.hinet.net ([91.252.216.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp2.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0S9s9M1005076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:54:11 +0100
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
References: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----M96CKT3BISIJUUKVW7J0R0KXFW7XCC"
From: Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@unina.it>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:51:19 +0100
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <b4e8bd7f-656a-4e0c-a838-afef2142a055@email.android.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:54:25 -0000
+1 Simon Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> ha scritto: > >Dear WG, > >After reviewing the poll results found here: >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/pdfWd2PIhOY9y.pdf >the chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an MTI >is required for the WebRTC ecology to develop. There are a number of >options which did not garner significant support; essentially only >options 1, 2, 3, 4 seem to have enough support that they might be the >eventual basis of working group consensus. The chairs do not view the >other options as having sufficient support to warrant further working >group activity or discussion. > >There is no obvious leader between VP8 and H.264, however, nor obvious >support for selecting both. Each has similar numbers of supporting >positions and objections, and both have the support of well over half >the participants in the straw poll. Given that, we are no closer to >being able to choose between them at this time. > >The chairs therefore propose tabling the discussion of a mandatory to >implement video codec until about 6 week before the start of the IETF >91 meeting in November 2014. This is so that the working group can >focus its energy on completing other work. We do expect to begin work >on the video document (draft-ietf-rtcweb-video) to meet its milestone >of December, but initially without specifying which of the two codecs >is the WG consensus for MTI. > >When we return to the discussion, the working group chairs currently >expect to run a consensus call on support for each codec to be >mandatory to implement. This expectation may change, however, based on >new information or working group experience. > >If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September >29, 2014 please let us know by February 4. > >Thank you, > >Cullen, Magnus, Ted <the chairs> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >rtcweb mailing list >rtcweb@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Chenxin (Xin)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Stefan HĂ„kansson LK
- [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Simon Pietro Romano
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Victor Pascual Avila
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw pol Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Alexandre GOUAILLARD
- [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Hervé W.
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)