Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Sat, 09 November 2013 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B670121F9FBA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:08:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.602, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6nPBZ61R7qQr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FEF21F9B5A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id qd12so5445801ieb.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:08:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=BWN/UA1f3+KhhkcTg+47wNjYiYE1GnwBoke7QEanVtU=; b=ZxIG+u4F6JD8ATCh2e9xQ392vj8mpNHg5u5BkPoawCBUFr/a1+ourMKQ4Byw6gknF3 v84s7HIKunMvh5jsISWTUqMi/It4WJtb0V8VZ7xanqHcUQGJvv72N6h3NhhzGUymepSp ahpEL/bTCFzBAGoTLwtYuMk6q0yR9OravhPsj0nLBG/SWW+HJzkITZrq2l1cD2JQqVo6 JJmFNSym62EwILxf925R8u47tEhxAxNa1+ZMFxQWCUuLGhu82Pr1pp7i2/X+m8DdyZsK /HjDZPi3p8yTp9xcDo1C4ei0ceAqudlGt7a5SXeKiWSyP6QWHjDPuX9BEsamvvqG0e1q 9UNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxQRSDZItVhrvEx6X56lL1rEB/HNPKoirKTQIEll7X2SbxALGnh5rTQxAlV+LdH+SXxdm5
X-Received: by 10.50.61.35 with SMTP id m3mr7308962igr.56.1384027713948; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p5sm9940365igj.10.2013.11.09.12.08.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <527E963F.5040605@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:08:31 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEA19328.A9A84%stewe@stewe.org> <527D6BFA.9090509@nostrum.com> <20131109055935.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <527DF3E3.7090906@nostrum.com> <CAJrXDUFw15fRE9SM7Ts=7FspP0s=N3JWK_BaPMhiBFakZs=OzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUFw15fRE9SM7Ts=7FspP0s=N3JWK_BaPMhiBFakZs=OzA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060607060207060704060609"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was Re: MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 20:08:39 -0000
... and many more non-browser native applications. Gili On 09/11/2013 2:36 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote: > While I appreciate the effort to gather additional information, I am > beginning to notice a trend that some of the big players here are > forgetting about the smaller players. In particular, there aren't > just 4 browsers in the world, and acting like there are only 4 > browsers in the world does not look good from a "big players vs. small > players" perspective. For example, can we really tell the world that > our WG has concluded "lots of smaller players can't ship codec X, but > we're going to mandate it anyway because the 4 big players are willing > to ship it" (which they haven't, but assuming they did)? > > May I remind you that Firefox, the very browser you represent, until > very recently, was on the "small player" side of the fence in the > codec debate and only until very recently (apparently) switched sides? > Perhaps you could still engender in yourself some lingering empathy > for those other small players that cannot necessarily comply with the > mandate of certain codecs that you are so willingly eager to press > upon them. > > You may abandon their cause, you may disregard their complaints, and > you may disparage their positions, but at least do not cease to > acknowledge their existence and forget that you were once one them. > There are more browsers than 4! > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com > <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote: > > On 11/8/13 21:59, Ron wrote: > > [T]he chairs already noted at the meeting that these browser > vendors had all indicated they would support whatever MTI decision > the working group made. > > > I agree with you that one of the chairs indicated that he had > personally received off-the-record, back-channel indications to > this effect. The problem is that this assertion conflicts with > off-the-record, back-channel indications that I have myself received. > > Perhaps someone from each of Google, Microsoft, and Apple could > stand up and confirm the chair's claim. I'll note that Mozilla is > already on the record in this regard. > > /a > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 cowwoc
- [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? (was… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Who is committed to supporting MTI? … Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929 David Singer