IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 58C6B1A874B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:56:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 XrH4EDQRUAD5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (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 71D901A8744 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 344E7581113C4; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:56:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id sBGJu4mw001585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:56:05 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.25]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:56:04 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
Thread-Index: AQHQGK9hz+EPVQM3202R+pzBLk6Ke5yRiFAAgAAEJwCAAAEZAIAAAMsAgAAFmwCAARFEgIAAAWIAgAADogCAAAQ5gIAADdEAgAAHm4D//9TVIP//8zUAgAAA1ACAABVpIA==
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:56:04 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B296427@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <CABcZeBNDiDyYtv_0vZyO_mGuFi-dn4s0CXEo1agMmRSvsLNR8w@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363463@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <CAD5OKxscDvS7SURWido5k5tsVhmMwWU7kVvGqEcTSdAMkWw8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=JP2zCWz-OD0c2DFoguaME5fWtuq67=+bkZ4syCL2mow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=JP2zCWz-OD0c2DFoguaME5fWtuq67=+bkZ4syCL2mow@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B296427FR712WXCHMBA11zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lX980MObDFb6TZJkXdXmZH3tano
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:56:19 -0000

Forget it.

You are making an attempt to reduce the entire issue to IPR, and the discussion prior to the last meeting had been wider that that, including issues of interoperability with endpoints outside webRTC.

As far as I am concerned an IPR free codec is irrelevant if I cannot talk to the endpoints I need to, and just concentrating on the webrtc community as the available endpoint may meet some deployers use cases, but not others.

Keith

________________________________
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
Sent: 16 December 2014 19:35
To: Roman Shpount
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI


+1

On 16 Dec 2014 20:32, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com<mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com<mailto:gmartincocher@blackberry.com>> wrote:

 I think what has not been discussed is a differentiated text for both codecs.
VP8 to be deprecated if failing to meet RF statements from proponents
H264 to be deprecated when not used anymore by legacy services in accordance with H264 proponents statements


How about
VP8 to be depreciated if it fails to pass the ISO or other standardization process or if licensing is confirmed in court to be a non royalty free.
H264 to be depreciated if VP8 passes the standardization process and confirmed to be royalty free, unless H264 becomes royalty free as well?
_____________
Roman Shpount


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email