Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no MTI?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 22 December 2013 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 8780E1AE13D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gil6qvCcsS57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5651AE0E4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id bz8so9837935wib.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vFIqnn+dfm5Sluivj1OLBYqFYCskU8tUdKWRev3iVo8=; b=mMbe4vzJnECP0ZmsFMpxChrCT2jVm1g1/Pravp5Yfxtn8Vh4PLijddLp+2NTNx69Tf krHZPw//oD2rU3BZY9BarWGXd4oE+T7paC4BH7aIOgxLvPvBb0jTSC/yeDZyX6YFJ888 ppbtphopqGO1yrJxt5tmCsnj3qbN7rM/n4Clok04SM/5IuBsjOdiqNGVQuQw9oPtvgYE 11Q/CQ94sRH0KZchBpAZbpBVtapQz7HsjxoG8j0xxTF3eOTjevaUGONXcoUC8cAUK2uW AkYh2GQtjII5hhawAFAzPmWdlLViqOv5icA7d6EL4a5L8VTC7WsioInK1LIuiM3N+Otw 8EkA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.175 with SMTP id gb15mr13738845wic.50.1387680456822; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.134.195 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>
References: <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131215075757.GB3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AE54F8.5070300@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBNqE25O+BNLboXDrJ1ypp26uRAw8ehwtyor9gJccpuzGw@mail.gmail.com> <52AE759C.7020209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMjTGs41t7y=xvaLdn4i63HxC2YQUkrd-itq=VkuKvpTA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi> <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org> <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com> <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:47:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUJeveiwF+gm1DTeVWEsOPgFW=rTtjoiOor76NFxEK9hA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise? what about no 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: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 02:47:41 -0000

On 21 December 2013 13:55, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "No MTI" allows us to focus on getting the specs finalized without the continuing distraction of MTI video codec debates.

I think that "no consensus" would work equally well.