Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Tue, 16 December 2014 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988B31A1A7D for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hhUnuOG_gZ1l for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 200C11A1A6F for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c9so10243079qcz.10 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=kbE7Ej1Axwg/kIZJ10OefX0AGCn5pmMhq5+jXzfK1hU=; b=KiNZtrs8QZYTJkFNRoKmtmQmRp3h73906sa/gR5oAJ0VdQy8BKhRbg/rdbxAXfIIDE HdMXfH+c8U0alIxdD7FC6AF6Tl2nmr9o4Pt7l/xOCveHLYOakTk/r4aXsjSVfXLeKnWw fk5cY4r25iEG4aQVwH6LWwzMhf+4cKjuGYYit7SmyWwc7ijTI13STnxPIpVIqMzNFV7/ 6aMJkLjAt47nev+FzDDjd4ZC/0mgWmnkKUCN3s/ohaPp5KQj09dMHZRqb2nKsisrltXW ZLG7CN5zEEDf3w/RubHtYfjEROlQlP2/wDitF82hI5KjzfyJ0XYUfVrQ4nONiTY8xa2m QHFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRahkX2EzlJJaJK9yEhqbUucVvpr7AarMrcoZnoVVX20os+xMpv9opHgg6Xwkvy1Sv4Ad3
X-Received: by with SMTP id u6mr14923200qcn.10.1418728048189; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:07:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <> <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:07:08 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:07:31 -0000

2014-12-15 23:03 GMT+01:00 Ted Hardie <>:
> 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