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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ED91ACE32 for <>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:52:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sYHW-XI1VicQ for <>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DF3B1ACE38 for <>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 652B0F2A06 for <>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:51:55 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unhappy People (was: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
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: 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