Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-12-15 23:03 GMT+01:00 Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>:
> The nice thing is that our current model allows us to have nice things right
> away; as soon as they are in common, they may be selected by negotiation.
> What the MTI gives us is a way to avoid interoperability failure.  So the
> key question isn't really "Is there something better?" but "Is the current
> MTI so bad that folks aren't willing to use it, so we are once again at risk
> of interoperability failure?".
>
> Whenever we are at risk of interoperability failure, the IETF may have to
> revisit the question.  But the future group will have an option we lack:  if
> nothing else seems more likely to be adopted, it can fall back on the
> current MTI.  That may make the calculus a bit easier; we may also have
> enough interoperability with some later codec that the answer will be
> obvious.  I have no crystal ball, but I certainly hope we will not have to
> go through this whole experience again.


Hi Ted,

No mention to "royalty free", "licensing" or "patents" in your
comment, but just concerns about "what users use" and
"interoperability" and "fall back to current MTI codecs".


> but "Is the current MTI so bad that folks aren't willing to use it, so we are once again at risk
> of interoperability failure?".

And is it better to depend on Cisco's benevolence forever and forcing
vendors and service providers to any kind of patent trolling from now
on? I cannot understand how you do not mention anything about these
important subjects.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>