IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 787D51A87E8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:58 -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 4WBWvczUoHOd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 104B31A87CE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x13so18654469wgg.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:50 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=sA5Okgxv3GIjMcyz8r2KyMUvBQUznY/yH3KZpfyhrmU=; b=RsC7i7MH3a5MvPu0Pokth6yQV9TE+N8YwumDiHM14JfcOAZUcgukQAbfq3im3jOF5V XtX6lAjCy39/6jZjvOmcCrAZZbNLxe70V4hpjmrZKyZLU7ByBO9h0hem1qsjMXaDrE6E Ls/cDM4Cn/OOPCs0X9eU29SUg12SxKuFiR6xMPpPYEl5uh5S+5m9+4AdyRg5N0L7rOiV AyYrBnPdO9WGGU63vk1zVAi5PjD/sNm1mVyvaKg2LCxCqxJP5txT8eCfAFOKv5d2KWXL Oo0NPQcRv0MMjkdnfYTXuy02NuxgufhiPq53ztIdfXq0vpEdgDXKRnrxAxlUBwoDaeVR tdhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZ6UsltmgviWBcb6H/ZRqFwYelVLa2U49uC6M6teLgCvTc2wlevtaSp5HdlVNgplIczvIj
X-Received: by 10.194.203.104 with SMTP id kp8mr33094661wjc.103.1418762450757; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.130.34 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363670@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <CABcZeBNDiDyYtv_0vZyO_mGuFi-dn4s0CXEo1agMmRSvsLNR8w@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF3634AA@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <CABcZeBPQMY=X1NFY=T04H7EGbapUMoEdN5k0WAmyzX2ijsm8pg@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363549@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <CABcZeBMnBCtBZqnbfcTfAR519UoffuVKKPPLc-35XKmU5WSFSg@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363670@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:40:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNGNfiYkROc3A4q5qpES3KdadgRiywexawPgKe7p-EU5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bae493ee60073050a5b5fa2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gQ47_BmKiyox-TLxIyAX8blYbG0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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, 16 Dec 2014 20:40:58 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <
gmartincocher@blackberry.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:59 PM
> *To:* Gaelle Martin-Cocher
> *Cc:* John Leslie; rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <
> gmartincocher@blackberry.com> wrote:
>
> I am not sure on what you are basing your opinion.
>
>
>
> As I said, the purpose of an MTI is to provide basic interop.
>
>
>
> That point is clear to all.  Sorry I was referring to “I would not
> imagine that we
>
> would define a new required codec unless it was not just technically
>
> superior but also definitively RF in the sense contemplated by Adam's
>
> text.”
>
> And I am not sure that holds true.
>
>
Making a new non-RF codec MTI doesn't enhance basic interop.

  Waiting for an RF technically superior codec might not be pragmatic and
> can indeed prevent any evolution of WebRTC codec for a long time.
>
> Deprecating MTI can be done in steps (e.g. become SHOULD, then MAY)
>
>
>
> If this MTI text prevents codec evolution, this is a serious issue.
>
>
>
> It doesn't prevent codec evolution. That's why we have negotiation.
> Browsers
>
> are free to implement non-MTI codecs and I would anticipate that they
>
> will do so.
>
> And non-browser as well, but the spec will let us stuck for ever with low
> performing codec.
>

This doesn't follow at all. The IETF is free to in the future designate some
other codec as MTI and these not and this text doesn't preclude that.

-Ekr


>

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email