Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Maire Reavy <> Mon, 08 December 2014 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF0D1A90E7 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:40:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URq_otOErJEY for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:40:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996081A8943 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: wwwh|x-authuser|
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9C8A1ADE50 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:40:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: wwwh|x-authuser|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by (trex/5.4.2); Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:40:42 GMT
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: wwwh|x-authuser|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: wwwh
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1418074841831:3345634858
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1418074841831
Received: from ([]:54248 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1Xy62n-0006sc-CS for; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:40:37 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:40:38 -0500
From: Maire Reavy <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:40:48 -0000

On 12/5/2014 2:58 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Considering that:
> 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
> 2) All consensus calls on "VP8 only" and "H.264 only" have failed
> 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
> I strongly support this MTI proposal.
> Please, let's close this debate once and for all. This compromise is
> by no means great, but it's much better than anything else we're going
> to get otherwise (i.e. more wasted time and still no MTI).
A big +1

We have spent *so* many hours already considering, discussing, & 
debating what to do about the MTI video codec.  One could argue an 
"insane amount" of time relative to the other issues we need to 
resolve.  We did this because most of us realized that "no MTI" could be 
horrific for the standard.  We should embrace consensus around anything 
less than horrific, and most of us agree that this compromise is less 
than horrific (not great, but less than horrific).

Right now I fear we're on the verge of shooting ourselves in the foot or 
head (I'm not sure which) by reopening this discussion even though we're 
in sight of the end.  I ask that the working group and the chairs put 
the proverbially safety back on the gun, declare consensus on this 
less-than-horrific proposal, and finish our work on "v1.0" of the spec.


Maire Reavy