IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 4AEE71AE160 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5-icAb02oJEB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc1-s5.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s5.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C0B1AE14B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W49 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s5.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:47 -0800
X-TMN: [b57TuVuRxcnCh+5cMz+/lUCef8xXoF01]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W49AEA803256B7982E052D993EE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c785fc0c-f343-4f28-ae4e-f51bae59eab8_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:47 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2mvebymnt_DgmHn310QY_Bgb-2oJyJhEeMxJCNz46ftZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>, <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org> <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>, <CAHp8n2mvebymnt_DgmHn310QY_Bgb-2oJyJhEeMxJCNz46ftZg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2013 22:24:47.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[A58C8440:01CEEC88]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection 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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:24:50 -0000

> if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
> supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL


[BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video, the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today, millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email