Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs

Adam Roach <> Fri, 08 November 2013 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D26E21E8160 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DdBNX6D323xP for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595CF21E8140 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rA8FJF1A056649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:19:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:19:14 -0800
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:19:29 -0000

On 11/7/13 18:22, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I must have failed to make the point I was attempting to make
> sufficiently clear.  Let me retry: If we believe that an MTI video
> codec, regardless of what it is, was an independently important thing
> to have then "no MTI" shouldn't be the result of failing to achieve an
> MTI in discussion, because there exist_an option_, any option, to
> achieve a MTI video codec.  So I was hoping to see any support for "no
> MTI" (which sounded very popular in the room) to come with arguments
> for why an MTI doesn't actually matter.

Thanks for the clarification: I didn't get that out of your first 
message. For what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying here.

What I could make sense of was a suggestion that we turn to complete 
randomness for the decision at hand. And while that would actually make 
me happy[1], it struck me as patent nonsense from a process perspective.

> There are plenty of other arguments that can be made about the
> non-optimality of the 3929 panel process...

I tried really hard to make sure that any conversations about 3929 could 
begin playing out by giving what I think is a rather accessible 
description of that process back in Paris.


[1] I just want an MTI [note: singular], and don't strongly care which 
one is selected. I *do* have a preference, but I don't think the 
arguments in favor of my preference are actually relevant to the IETF.