IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 1BA0D1AE3B4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GUARANTEED_100_PERCENT=2.699, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 FS2IcNruFVZ0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573721AE3AC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn2-1025.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4269350A84; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:37:36 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3ruj91wd=1_TUevapamLxNJ93Ukd=VU+Gq7Q19YTvc+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:38:12 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E04C49C8-3D3D-4805-9D04-A017C2AD8E46@iii.ca>
References: <528E69E2.9020208@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E0@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <CAOJ7v-151K2UoeMOhY-UUDzZwE=89qzbAQdrhQXYb72W+ZxQOw@mail.gmail.com> <3249225E-6709-4022-88CF-75020C1A4CEC@iii.ca> <CAOJ7v-3ruj91wd=1_TUevapamLxNJ93Ukd=VU+Gq7Q19YTvc+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:38:11 -0000

On Nov 21, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Put another way, if the alleged IPR issues associated with either H.264 or VP8 disappeared overnight, this discussion would be instantly over.

Justin, I don't think everyone agrees with you on this. If VP8 was magically 100% guaranteed to be free of all patents tomorrow, there would still be a large block of people arguing for H.264.  I'm not trying to say there is consensus on this topic, one way or the other, just that not everyone agrees with that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email