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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.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 603B81A1A9C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 05:52:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 MSn_MNW9Ph8z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 05:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0F01A1A7A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 05:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id E0B5D23F0569 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:52:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.192]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:52:00 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
Thread-Index: AQHQEy+of4TO2bgXw0CYmosb75uvLJyHRcDQ
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:51:59 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E638036@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org>
In-Reply-To: <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/llf89myAndkXSimyq7anrjJ62vs
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:52:08 -0000

+1 I support the compromise plan as presented by the chair.

Also agree with Maire and hope we can put a lid on this and return to useful discussion.

Andy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Maire Reavy
> Sent: 08 December 2014 21:41
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
> 
> On 12/5/2014 2:58 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Considering that:
> > 1) We have committed to an MTI video codec
> > 2) All consensus calls on "VP8 only" and "H.264 only" have failed
> > 3) This is the only proposal that gets support from both camps
> > I strongly support this MTI proposal.
> > Please, let's close this debate once and for all. This compromise is
> > by no means great, but it's much better than anything else we're
> going
> > to get otherwise (i.e. more wasted time and still no MTI).
> A big +1
> 
> We have spent *so* many hours already considering, discussing, &
> debating what to do about the MTI video codec.  One could argue an
> "insane amount" of time relative to the other issues we need to
> resolve.  We did this because most of us realized that "no MTI" could
> be
> horrific for the standard.  We should embrace consensus around anything
> less than horrific, and most of us agree that this compromise is less
> than horrific (not great, but less than horrific).
> 
> Right now I fear we're on the verge of shooting ourselves in the foot
> or
> head (I'm not sure which) by reopening this discussion even though
> we're
> in sight of the end.  I ask that the working group and the chairs put
> the proverbially safety back on the gun, declare consensus on this
> less-than-horrific proposal, and finish our work on "v1.0" of the spec.
> 
> Please.
> 
> -Maire
> -------------------------
> Maire Reavy
> mdr@reavy.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb