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

Adam Roach <> Tue, 09 December 2014 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568851A8836 for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:53:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IMi6t-oEOJJ7 for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D27A81A87F2 for <>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sB9KrJKE003937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:53:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:53:18 -0600
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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, 09 Dec 2014 20:53:27 -0000

On 12/9/14 12:44, David Singer wrote:
> I mean, the draft ‘must do both’ would require people who have a 
> principled objection to paying fees, having to pay for H.264. I am 
> curious, are people willing to let their principles (and money) go, in 
> order to comply with the ‘must’?

I'd like to point out that Ron ( -- I actually don't know his 
last name) has consistently and admirably made the most principled 
objections in the MTI codec conversation, over the course of several 
years. And Ron has posted many times in support of this plan.

To be clear, I'm arguing from what I think is a principled place as 
well, and I'm the one who brought this plan to the WG (even though it's 
not what I would have preferred) -- but Ron seems to really be the 
torchbearer for a clearly principled stand here.