Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Daniel-Constantin Mierla <> Tue, 16 December 2014 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423021A8765 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ktcj_QT5Ga_h for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E556E1A8779 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h11so13542384wiw.1 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=ktXFrtnv3uCW7noAbhxRNPBngRcYDXpvC2ziZXAKkHc=; b=M4eL7Pvc4qrQkWhzvqIY7BNcjUGrRohMIsulwXKUUX7W5fgtnn+J6EWsK7g3uHr2Ca YXnoYfpwTx9NlaMYcsbL1w+ApSIc5cpLZaMCVBZxWgAj5GEp87dDQYqZAgxtBfnynN9d 9WJUPKtSOBiV1+IDG45ww7zPSxUIZrO/4jfVhBSmXiNSvQVFX8f49XVjurCSKWBRtPc3 yaUaGLl1x836N/274KDDyw1KroohGt05XAaT0oiX17iv5YkOoW24h7yw2w+xccUAhOVp LnqNg05Cg44MnpzpJWtesjyU9OlmgkIgCAnJJCuX2GQheFpdsJEtvGvdx7Ow3gwbtC+Z naAg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l6mr7952296wia.26.1418761572742; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2a01:4f8:a0:638e::2]) by with ESMTPSA id kn5sm2354830wjb.48.2014. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:26:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:26:10 +0100
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Barnes <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000005000903050005060903"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:26:35 -0000

Hi Richard,

thanks for the clarification! IMO, the initial message content was not
stating explicitly this is the goal and apparently it misled the
expectation from some of us.

Maybe it would be appropriate to have a fresh message sent by WG
chairs/AD (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to say it
explicitly by subject, just in case someone (else than me) didn't
understand (from current discussions) that there is an ongoing call on
consensus for video MTI codec. There are still three days left that can
prevent negative reactions later.


On 16/12/14 21:03, Richard Barnes wrote:
> <hat type="AD" subtype="process-steward"/>
> Hi Daniel,
> Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to seek
> consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is to allow
> for any other issues to be raised, beyond those that were raised in
> the room in Honolulu.  At the end of the comment period on Friday,
> Sean will review the discussion and make a determination as to whether
> a rough consensus has been reached.
> --Richard
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> < <>> wrote:
>     With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can anyone clarify
>     the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG chairs
>     stating what is the role of the current discussions, specially to the
>     initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the room: mti
>     codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:
>        -
>     My understanding was that it is about clarifying what happened during
>     the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the proposal. I
>     get the feeling that many understood it differently, being the call on
>     consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply stating there
>     position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
>     say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
>     discussion by Sean.
>     For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit subject,
>     including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.
>     Which side got it wrong here?
>     Thanks,
>     Daniel
>     --
>     Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>!/miconda <> -
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
> <>

Daniel-Constantin Mierla!/miconda -