Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 11 November 2014 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EAE1A8912 for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FMnrV1VqKnie for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B30B81A19E2 for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 10so8027383lbg.7 for <>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9dOlHK2z8PotG7zJyMU0/AvvVLqDALThTzSGHBSpaDQ=; b=TaVTpQ6/jNRd9iKpVRaQEfqfOntvnC0XIS1n6Wy0YUVidrJ4hpBMmWiCN9dlIWCpys c0IWbRYwCYfemxUU5MWj8DzbZnq1ruCAz/kOhrQzXI0VU2Q9cL67mi5WaNXr1hj5fiov 5jzZ902IG/2A15nVWMX+caEHTphsQfu+neZUKl2f1M7mfCY9WiXEURmrCjw5PMkwEVWK /YcZHsyr3p8Xkaptfj5Su3hJlS6vy9A0eSgq7MIR80BBGU8yegA4lH/DxZzoheo/UVPn AK3IB85mFSznPaytWJcNVTdxL7/Xs0UNiyhp0M0V3ovqh9fkOHgRErJh5uuku4tNKrMI bVCw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id kx3mr38351145lac.53.1415735779123; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:56:18 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Andrew Allen <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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, 11 Nov 2014 19:56:25 -0000

On 11 November 2014 06:16, Andrew Allen <> wrote:
> Would we really go through the process to constitute a new WG just in order to debate whether there is "compelling evidence"?

I think that all we can do right now is try to establish what the
intent is.  Whether any future effort happens will depend on whether
there is sufficient will (and a venue) to have that discussion at that
time.  We can't predict that that will happen, so I don't think that
there is much value in spending a whole lot of time on the subject.
Getting the text of a statement like this precisely right is going to
be tricky, but I suggest that we give Adam a little discretion in
producing it.