[rtcweb] The two consensus questions

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 06 December 2013 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 F27511AE239 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:57:13 -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] 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 BLqdQHv4KjIr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977FB1AE17E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB60v4CF008081 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:57:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1386291428; bh=uFnOfmR9gOE4uQ9pt1ah+C/mX0HeuvZYTvxguMJ75/k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=uzYgjRxHwxEZwH/gxngooLm5ftQOiwv7L4EroK3BowcPcF5zVWFygO8abmNohvfRE AJvFjkW1dI6NtxKburaoTrX3hTM1rXSqkTSOJfinSf9QedGkk4gy89febaCgHxTWgz cmJYaeCFoZmzVNBxcpQ7IkDlzSkqFjv2hCo8F2Qk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1386291428; i=@resistor.net; bh=uFnOfmR9gOE4uQ9pt1ah+C/mX0HeuvZYTvxguMJ75/k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=SvH3qpc9qZul6FChBYWvs+9hLMCV76FapbtQ53XjMac7NN8ThmwS9ZbFNLvRJh4sS Hk8cxPwjczGyAcaYeCYyQEsy1c+c+S1pSf3dpGqkO2gDZsTbxiWBroPrqjcdz1pAkO Hr99Nijadu7xqpoipbdzkEiugx2Zy6JDXjgaDC3w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131205161901.0ac3ee58@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:54:33 -0800
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [rtcweb] The two consensus questions
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:57:14 -0000

Hello,

I read the RTCWEB minutes for the last meeting.  According to the 
minutes there were two presentations about VP8 and H.264.  There was 
then the following question:

   "If you have a reason you cannot live with one of these codecs that has not
    already been discussed, can you explain it now?"

And "no new issues were raised".

"The room was then asked two consensus questions:

1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are 
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are 
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

You may raise your hand more than once and we encourage you to do so 
if you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one 
over the other."

The above looks like voting to me.  The minutes for the two hour 
session are very short.  It is difficult to get a view of what happened.

Regards,
-sm