IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

Ron <ron@debian.org> Thu, 06 November 2014 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 C79A01A8988 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:29:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 iSWahE8Pjyv7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D4A1A8986 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp14-2-63-74.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.63.74]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2014 04:59:41 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FACEFFE57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:59:40 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id e3ss9xC2vGOd for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:59:38 +1030 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz [192.168.1.6]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECD44FF841 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:59:37 +1030 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DBA0D80470; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:59:37 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 04:59:37 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141106182937.GH8092@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <98200BCB-ABC9-4BE0-B11D-B7AEC9F8B2A4@ieca.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D4E50D8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <E78E8017-A08F-4061-B2BA-FB3900B1C681@phonefromhere.com> <CAGTXFp-9AtQakpLt+O_eNRNr71uyh26igLb-_56LDUTQ+g5iJg@mail.gmail.com> <545A6281.4050601@gmail.com> <EC89515C-4FD9-4C08-A80A-42B36004A516@phonefromhere.com> <545A7E0B.4070505@gmail.com> <C17546AB-1419-49C2-A634-49296C122347@phonefromhere.com> <CABcZeBOWyy3hagGpjMzmbPJjCaBdUjUUs5zat-t7h75Xa+Fzkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOWyy3hagGpjMzmbPJjCaBdUjUUs5zat-t7h75Xa+Fzkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/eK8idA_no3YyqaXJiSGT1U8Abbk
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:29:54 -0000

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:14:27PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, the worst aspect of any adoption of H264 is that it makes it
> > significantly more difficult to
> > produce a custom ’secure’ build of firefox that has been independently
> > reviewed for special use-cases
> > (press, humanitarian workers etc).
> 
> Why is this true? We currently build OpenH264 and then send the binary to
> Cisco but keep a hash for comparison. Why is it more difficult to review
> this?

Is Cisco offering to ship such binaries for anyone who wants to build
them, or is this a special privilege they offered to you to win your
support for their scheme?

  Ron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email