Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 10 December 2014 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 D3BFE1A01A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 aKGMg-XCwmpo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F15C1A0069 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id m20so1766564qcx.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:24 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=c8qr5LyRAIqQMyCKgvhqBcgHUhQZ1hx8v3uYdca2T0Q=; b=iBAn/ezldPLlm8unarcyblp4W4QxuLZ73xgTOvNkk+yI2fKzKrjoWctxXfRMLI7JBE GL1nPDWCksmM0Uf/uwO0ux1wSc8ErJKebpXNsbJQEiNk9Hzq4NilkISYiMaiHU4c4A9m M6YkpDsR8WFP0SejK/cGjVHvA7ArQcpBwLWGAJux2/nPtsYOr2jJC17daM8tBx+q/wnM lTxr4ucCQr8X48aZOL0Reqmn8Nm+Xq8XF1y3mHmDgtv+TpmSPxqvCZRfE2hIbZKu4Jdy O30xQ7FxAmluAXVb4JpxFe6oE9aOjD2q7VflEJbxkomjHwJC+N6xFtLqYfGhfLk+veTe bgdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkktSCfmdl0cX91IB8iblfbVPhfdxZMa5IvvZ3ZXLpuoTswvo+/v+u46mjrt0hKSY0qlcEO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.51.11 with SMTP id b11mr5834198qag.43.1418200404423; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.26.135 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.26.135 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 00:33:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A4330364-297D-422F-90F7-1E2B98F732FB@phonefromhere.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsv9W9_x+RroLdsAKyhNAFGGdCTm9P3BMf1_L0XzB8UBQ@mail.gmail.com> <A4330364-297D-422F-90F7-1E2B98F732FB@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:33:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfnzZ0bJ8bCHfoELVGLUZK4UDiSBw6x9XrqHdp0W4vnTrw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdcad4e538f3b0509d88388
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/kZkQTtzcvMriSgicvSm1lQrgNN0
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:33:27 -0000

> > New question:  How can an endpoint that implements video but none of
the MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible”?

Even taking this subject into the telephony world: how can thousands of SIP
phones that do not even support video be labeled as "RFC 3261 Compliant"?

> At the risk of falling down the semantic trap you set, it could be
pushing an experimental webGL based codec over the data channel.
> or an art installation. It might implement encode only of one of the MTIs
- one way survelliance - or even encode on VP8 and decode on h264
> because of some whacky licensing shenanigans.

I see many use cases for bidirectional audio and just video decoding.

> It is very easy to see these standards in terms of classic video calls,
while forgetting that the web is a wild and exciting place full of
> strange and unexpected surprises.

+1