IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Unhappy People (was: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Fri, 12 December 2014 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.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 E4ED91ACE32 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:52:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 sYHW-XI1VicQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DF3B1ACE38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.0.43] (50-78-100-113-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.78.100.113]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 652B0F2A06 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <548B0F1B.3090009@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:55 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <5485CC5B.2030104@alvestrand.no> <EC8E5879-8364-445B-8BC2-8E54045BC832@live555.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC8E5879-8364-445B-8BC2-8E54045BC832@live555.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/jgiG9E0PbStWBZvu6VUtZAq2Na8
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unhappy People (was: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
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: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:52:05 -0000

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> I think that just about everybody is unhappy about at least some aspect
> of this compromise.  (For example, as I noted at the microphone in

Yes. From reading the comments in this discussion, it seems to me many 
people are unhappy with many _different_ aspects of the proposal. 
However, there's no one aspect that everyone universally agrees is bad 
[1]. I include myself among those unhappy people, despite my overall 
support for the proposal.

[1] The one possible exception is the term "WebRTC-compatible" to 
describe a thing that doesn't obey the WebRTC specs, but as Christer 
pointed out, that's not an issue with the proposal, that's an issue with 
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email