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

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.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 A7E151A1DFA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Wx_5Kckd2kF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E77ED1A1A07 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r20so8700533wiv.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:45:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JQlEHz0cdySd5uFg0lEQzBLP53jMjoneuWvhFzmklyw=; b=qcXuXTjhURm/kE3RUW+3MupfArwoAnkrpuTbubLe6o/bDA3r53Wsf4b8ZWvdi78X2N vIsR/p2DkVrVIZxLEaZG+Q4CELAsQ1q7py/kcmiTZRIJSB0j3AR8zYkSUY6odFtA6gL+ JoRt1STxSfIoyDL0FuJwlo6Lz9e11QKbKJ0SDsCQLKEW4wJ6mxGDU6znV7BnQbptfg5u xnpNfWDyfjMPbRPMXuW/maftfzBJa2OS7vxMdVkM6GjDyA2mI4U3+1dvvNMEvGa93oTX a/xYR/udH70zppddEQqEtjvpRBGb9jJtlLOsY2d2v0nbpJYOGGWRvmzlrSa5bldvGtLG u7wA==
X-Received: by 10.180.84.198 with SMTP id b6mr34552241wiz.41.1418147135365; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.37] (136.Red-81-39-109.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [81.39.109.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ry19sm2653496wjb.3.2014.12.09.09.45.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5487353D.8030106@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:45:33 +0100
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <5487331F.8050404@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <5487331F.8050404@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/h2-pdyBP6kQq7YnbHKjV_5zCwh0
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 17:45:46 -0000

On 09/12/2014 18:36, cowwoc wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 12:32 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>
>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the 
>> room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to implement both codecs, or 
>> whether they conveniently think they don’t need to, and it’s just a 
>> problem for other people to handle.
>>
>> Honestly, a +1 for “those other people should do it” is meaningless.
>
> That's a fair point. I'm guessing the vast majority of people 
> answering on the mailing list only plan to implement one codec because 
> they are non-browser implementors.

No, that's not a fair point. I don't see most of the people making 
taking decisions on other topics (SDP, FEC,  DTLS, CC, 
SVC/Simulcasting/Multicasting, Plan A/PlanB/No plan) implementing them 
themselves. So if this going to be the rule about who-can-vote-what we 
should redefine the whole IETF process.

Everyone should be aware of what are they voting and what is the amount 
of burden/costs it requires to be implemented, and see how that will 
contribute to the success/failure of webrtc and vote accordingly. Not 
just in this topic, but in any topic.

Best regards
Sergio