IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 06:32 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 E33BA1AE1F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:32:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 M8hk3q5whovv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E041AE3D0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rBB6VGeD006239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:31:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rBB6VFdK007213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:31:15 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:31:15 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHO9jqXyoxuJHTM0EyW2RNX26zuzg==
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 06:31:15 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0F6380@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A48441927F3A@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A6D092.3090701@ericsson.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484419289C7@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <52A7A255.6050409@nostrum.com> <CABkgnnUZvKc5TF6anEJU=2RWUX1s2HpCqkLFUk1t0=ziUxE0dA@mail.gmail.com> <52A7B93F.2040409@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <52A7B93F.2040409@bbs.darktech.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 06:32:47 -0000

Methinks you take that statement too far.

Or are you saying video is a mandatory component of all webrtc sessions?

And even if video was, then in 10 years, either of the particular codec specifications will be an irrelevance, but webrtc might live on - assuming it ever gets enough specification off the starting blocks.

In other words lets get a sense of perspective here, lets see less of the cycles on this discussion and lets see the focus back on progressing the documents.

Which document do the chairs want to place most emphasis on progressing first?

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of cowwoc
> Sent: 11 December 2013 01:01
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw 
> Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
> 
> On 10/12/2013 7:01 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On 10 December 2013 15:23, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> >> Then light a candle.
> > I continue to do this, but still find myself agreeing with Matthew.
> 
> Methinks we are going to end up with two competing WebRTC 
> specifications...
> 
> We have hundreds of participants on this list and everyone 
> thinks they know better. The only way we're going to reach 
> any sort of consensus is if people start compromising. I 
> mention this because I noticed that some people have 
> responded to the straw poll with one "Yes", a bunch of "No"s 
> and not a single "Acceptable".
> 
> Anyway, I'll ask you the same question as I've asked Matthew: 
> what is your counter-proposal?
> 
> Gili
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email