Re: [rtcweb] Alternative Proposal for Dynamic Codec Parameter Change (Was: Re: Resolution negotiation - a contribution)

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
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 D824E21F8755 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gww6omr9qByL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-mail03.mozilla.org (dm-mail03.mozilla.org [63.245.208.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F6A21F8733 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.250.5.141] (corp-240.mv.mozilla.com [63.245.220.240]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by dm-mail03.mozilla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B37D4AED97 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F96D922.2090205@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:47:30 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120305 SeaMonkey/2.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <4F869648.2020605@alvestrand.no> <4F96B7C9.1030609@ericsson.com> <4F96D83F.8020705@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4F96D83F.8020705@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative Proposal for Dynamic Codec Parameter Change (Was: Re: Resolution negotiation - a contribution)
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:47:32 -0000

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> My big worry is the IPR issue - I think that negotiation of video size
> during a call is likely to be "MUST implement", and I don't want to
> require implementation of a protocol where people have filed non-RF IPR
> claims against it if there are viable alternatives.

Particularly when those claims come from the author's employer.