IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 31 October 2012 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.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 9256A21F8639 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k49IP61Pkaru for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C9321F876C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail124-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.230) by CH1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.43.70.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:14 +0000
Received: from mail124-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail124-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E852E32006B; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BY2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -20
X-BigFish: PS-20(zzbb2dI98dI1432Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ah1082kzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail124-ch1: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.236.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.236.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BY2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail124-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail124-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 135164767375841_23714; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.246]) by mail124-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102FF220064; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BY2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.133) by CH1EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.43.70.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:12 +0000
Received: from BY2PRD0710MB354.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.195]) by BY2PRD0710HT001.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.86.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0233.002; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:11 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question
Thread-Index: AQHNtgBnhFefoY+uxEeuadvRogjlhpfQxgiAgAGrLwCAALp9AA==
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:10 +0000
Message-ID: <FDBFA77C7400C74F87BC297393B53E352596BC07@BY2PRD0710MB354.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <509055C4.6060500@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.86.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6EB661A70B79AF4CB6E8EF90621DA7E4@namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Form of the video codec question
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:41:24 -0000

Hi Adam,

On 10.30.2012 15:33 , "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>On 10/29/12 16:04, Oct 29, John Leslie wrote:
>>     I view both being MTI as somewhat reasonable, and neither being MTI
>> as a likely best-choice
>
>That's an interesting set of assertions. I, for one, cannot see how you
>reached either conclusion.
>
>Selecting "both" solves none of the problems that have been raised to
>date. It takes on the entire union of disadvantages that have been
>raised about the candidate codecs, while providing the benefits of
>neither.
>
>Selecting "neither" is intentionally aiming the ship for the rocks: we
>guarantee failure. If we publish a specification to which two
>implementations can comply but cannot subsequently inter-operate, then
>the entire point of standardization is defeated.

I disagree.  It just takes a commercial decision making process out of the
hands of IETF geeks and into the hands of (hopefully) competent business
people.  Given the money and risk involved, that is sensible.

SDOs can do wonderful things, but sorting out this dispute is not one of
them.

Stephan

>
>/a
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status