Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
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 809D11A038D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:51:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 3Gan062xg03c for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:51:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA36D1A00B1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id em10so2912870wid.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:51:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/SjwbeExHyqJz14ZoM+f1Kjwz6qXh7ZE+bFwYsBa2PU=; b=gJ+/s2QHI25vlDV1ft+tv70Z5SgLwiI44LNEHf807ZJcAh9tcFktUPG0aYHa2ihfMw MK6syF3uhOK3N9b7MdArInnOhXyYk2mkjCu+YKvFonDqcK/VfLjbJ1m2C0FAzANCdlZy E+X1BQfjIrvzmo3uVHVh13aHwcjHOqpgk6azcsNvINVDOCTpUl8Tm6++sraoJ0G928KP zuvUUWLFyXqFf0VzCXtO8fnNOlFYdnCGLx7E5ePGqmy2oq37lDotDlcS70FEInCf6Xqn SNo3fQVWDVlZrYjPHLh3RX1ChLLzvbaSdqCUbI2V0E+4zOuemQ2llxq884ul6DRiJDDL 0wIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlw2zMllQRAqotowGC1BpvZfdOjC/sXFPyTTTpmxNOmwCI0jU75NA1m2EOXHrAxt163yCmb
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.211 with SMTP id m19mr7076652wiw.73.1418154665552; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.6.39 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:51:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.6.39 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:51:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D18AB097-8C30-40BC-83DF-D2249D615CF4@apple.com>
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <CA+E6M0mfHomZByk0h1Fdxis3Q+Z0cOPve+qWqq_BVOtq9qB6sg@mail.gmail.com> <D18AB097-8C30-40BC-83DF-D2249D615CF4@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 21:51:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+E6M0mFAtBWyvSL_YpBsYPSQ_p3MY1c+9WU8AESG1=P4fBg3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7ab213c6460509cdddbf
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gOJfDPDnse7jfpWf0CA6vwZPOiw
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:51:08 -0000

Well, that's a much clearer question without  implications. However, I
think it is impossible to answer at this point regardless how many people
indicate that they will implement both codecs or not at this point.

Mohammed
On Dec 10, 2014 6:35 AM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:31 , Mohammed Raad <mohammedsraad@raadtech.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You know, that's a very strange path to take. I mean it really does
> sound like attempting to come to an agreement regarding what features
> future products should have by limiting participation in this technical
> decision process to those committed to deploy specific technologies. I
> think you ought to read the definition of anti competitive practice again.
>
> Please be respectful of your language.
>
> I am trying to find out a simple answer:  how many endpoints would, in
> fact, expect to support both codecs?
>
>
> I am not trying to limit participation.  I am trying to find out whether
> we would actually get the purported effect.
>
> If all the people humming yes make webrtc-compatible endpoints, we do not
> get the effect we want.  Is it that hard to see that?
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>