Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Andrew Allen <> Thu, 04 December 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F211AD3FF for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ltQTIO4IBoy for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA60B1AD44B for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Dec 2014 10:43:34 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:43:34 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:43:33 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AdAP2Q8o2za5sQikUES+QP80tOoCXw==
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:43:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_201412041543325955730143473231blackberrycom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:43:46 -0000


To me you seem to be saying this was a very un IETF like political decision structured to gather enough votes to pass rather than one based on the usual technical merits of each proposal.


Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 06:26
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On 12/04/2014 03:10 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
> There was a single hum for the three categories (browser, non-browser, compatible endpoints), right?
> That makes a lot of sense for non-browser entities that are in fact WebRTC-compatible enpoints (apps, or gateways or else) to push the burden on the browser vendors as those entities will need to interact with browsers. Hence "hum"...
> I think it would make a lot of sense to have different "hums" or questions for the two different categories.
> That will bring clarity on what the "non-browser" yet WebRTC endpoint is, versus what the WebRTC-compatible endpoint is (let aside gateways).
> It is not clear to me that we would have had the same results for each category if there was two (or three) different questions.

It is not clear that the questions are independent.

In fact, it is pretty clear to me that some participants who were
willing to go with this package deal were quite unwilling to commit to
all the pieces of the package if they were presented one at a time, and
they had to answer the question not knowing how all the other pieces
came out.

I think this is a textbook case of a "package deal".

rtcweb mailing list