Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 A3D3B1A8743 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Ukjoy1Hajgsa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C0E1A8736 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r5so10861348qcx.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=K54t83DBkObMVovuPjcoRfx++h8V6oNryA6cQjdhHHs=; b=NY5QFrQY2zatRjnmpS6iMKUYzPFSKiTj6qeBKVefu1sjns+slhpCPvfSIRwyMfGwd4 FSo3AojLpwTeaJxLkphpt8gXmgIdZzLXre6TNYrhtnfCt2Ns9lqtH9gcQTXoA7qW+h5D U3tuoHKyxrJw4AzK4uXqx/qmc01C/f01BogdPMk4hzdPqTaa5jg7Xc8kpWUUsnp41r4B n3+0inpVQDvvg9p+Ivl0d6Wj63G8MU9E3+3CekaBbWUZRCcqsaYd+OQ4KOBLYdZInRVx 28nOFsgHXOavL+11S4L73JzPuaV47CsANdd4zneY97wQDTqUfQYZIQ9bH3WrnbcWWrkK mYZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnphf6FLyZShXurx0jwFKOsYUfwzBAStnNacfd+HJlYhE3Az3Vqd3KQ7cJV405HR4rYDyAE
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.97.35 with SMTP id l32mr17290164qge.11.1418758528385; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.26.135 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.26.135 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxscDvS7SURWido5k5tsVhmMwWU7kVvGqEcTSdAMkWw8Fg@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:35:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegf=JP2zCWz-OD0c2DFoguaME5fWtuq67=+bkZ4syCL2mow@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9c281b5cab050a5a76a0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/nvcZPYoqhNkUfRmpTf1jR7Oawnk
Cc: 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 19:35:37 -0000

+1
On 16 Dec 2014 20:32, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>