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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 12 December 2014 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 BA1131ACD9B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:58:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 xYy3cILW91EZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com (mail-qa0-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6261ACD8C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f12so5315006qad.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:58:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DDGdcrRqatXFdSAQUmONxR6IvJ97kvEFkMJ5cxDhzOc=; b=BEDm9VNykWku9wkr+lxOYdYTPOiMTWEUjMnrnGx/xObuF8rgsczjLiwUBjudB94g5C eqdwGN0WYN7pq17ZvAFWzQP63UUj03dzLw4JEhR6vL1hEuGpAyG9rP+a/n9O+zz8Lbdn NFpmemYAyv6nl0FKg5aSv49x7QcLRdMiHf2iROm08qiCJA4W/vvb7WuS1HFI3So7oRyy kR572NRHZqAzvgNYRTl+icNwzXwvjjk86kA9rktiWxivK9UuMoxoCQQMq6n34uR+HrwL R+lHj83JTXTCI5ufxx1nZXrqNFOFud8/z9OkG1wq1k21/PLEArqVtYymNCHDO9n+wxmW PUUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJH/f9Nux8zW0TX5ugifJmT1LZj2Etp4KaPWAcsDQzv7oFX7HrAXzj4jxlrWtIrlNgZRgw
X-Received: by 10.140.102.13 with SMTP id v13mr11817345qge.68.1418396280359; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:58:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.26.135 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:57:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <548AFF76.1010003@nostrum.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CALiegfmuO6m=FfSQ9b9i_cu+_0eUSbxTtMh0_9kNCk9BLf-iuA@mail.gmail.com> <548AD22D.7040104@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <548AFB1A.1040405@andyet.net> <548AFF76.1010003@nostrum.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:57:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfmH6hWp6nuArv8YyPcgq6SCd9x-dU0cxAaKJLrmb0hc_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Ymo6mIhUicw3EwkMVdSwuEI2vUo
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:58:03 -0000

2014-12-12 15:45 GMT+01:00 Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>om>:
> I think that the future-looking clause is one of the wartiest parts of this
> proposal. On the other hand, it's the one thing that makes it different than
> things we've considered in the past, and is clearly a key part of what
> allowed it to gather the support that it has so far. So: ugly, necessary,
> and sufficient.
>
> Given that it's sufficient to gain the current level of support, the need
> for change is unclear.
>
> Given that it's necessary, we can't remove it, or the whole thing falls
> apart.
>
> And, given that it's ugly, making it more expansive would only make the
> proposal qualitatively worse.
>
> There's no point trying to map out large decision trees for the future,
> especially since we've had such a contentious time coming to some semblance
> of agreement on the current direction. Pushing more future-looking decisions
> into the text would only serve to give us more things to disagree about.
>
> And, as you point out, if something comes up in the future that materially
> changes the landscape, it's completely within the purview of the IETF to
> apply rational analysis to make a decision based on the actual facts at that
> time.

That would sound really nice if the already chosen MTI codecs were
100% RF with no licensing/patent issues. That's not the case so IMHO
the door should remain open for, at least, the inclusion of a new 100%
RF video codec.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>