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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

> > 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