Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 28 November 2013 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 BAB8A1AE147 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 ECamyEWxQ1de for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8141ADF64 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id to1so15360053ieb.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:37 -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 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0ydgh6Nhog2ooL63cegY2KykSF6xbOFYZflcXEON96s=; b=XeyDBtN0+1c5kpk9ToTZEcqJDJYcsuGns54VWISC5wRgcIQznl4GevcqW0l5m0cA+H DpkSIelSYZebEvaOlLRa39agbwAKl9sykRAk2qxgu/LxSB9TQaq8c6t7tmkn7Jqo5Fx+ hoa5tpdVpMRnjijZQH39xCIDFG8I3wlyRnS0lNW16Bte3DSYMSHcDFSwsT4qnkikz2Co uXo0KOekgeoEjww44mporTmvPwrq+AaDzS4FujMITgRtDCSf16LWN/Ypxd9TSW/V8fGg ASy53L6E21ygA66j5VONOO0K53iHKFZeta2ZcBXf+p50RmOyX+697OtOgsHqqT1T2qMg 364A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4W3F/i3XUhuyctN8Y0Q5CmVHvNSEGUIQKCKdwIFaasJBir6inJag+bvpQls/2VfrldHaB
X-Received: by 10.50.73.201 with SMTP id n9mr3816832igv.8.1385681137103; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:37 -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 x6sm47409320igb.3.2013.11.28.15.25.35 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:25:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5297D0C1.80105@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:24:49 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org>, <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org> <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>, <CAHp8n2mvebymnt_DgmHn310QY_Bgb-2oJyJhEeMxJCNz46ftZg@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W49AEA803256B7982E052D993EE0@phx.gbl> <5297C306.1070905@bbs.darktech.org> <5297C73F.6080600@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5297C73F.6080600@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:25:39 -0000

On 28/11/2013 5:44 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>
>
> On 28.11.13, 23:26, cowwoc wrote:
>> On 28/11/2013 5:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>> > if we can't agree on what encoding and decoding formats must be
>>> > supported, we can't plug a WebRTC connection together. #FAIL
>>>
>>>
>>> [BA] Just because the IETF can't come to consensus doesn't mean that
>>> interoperation won't be possible.  With respect to streaming video,
>>> the W3C could not come to consensus on an MTI codec, yet today,
>>> millions of Internet users are able to watch videos.
>>>
>>
>> That's because servers are able to offer the same pre-recorded video in
>> multiple formats. The same is not true for WebRTC where:
>>
>>   * There might not be a server.
>>   * Transcoding video in real-time is expensive.
>
> The point is that solutions emerge.
>
> SIP has been in exactly the same situation for a few years now and, 
> last I checked, it was enjoying quite the popularity

Video is a lot more expensive to transcode than audio. Correct me if I'm 
wrong, but isn't SIP predominantly used to carry audio?

Gili