Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:52 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 C3D721A6F05 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:52:46 -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 dSj16pdLapl8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02B231A8A48 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r2so4971880igi.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:52:41 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lbklqz70XXeYW6K/RFLkIoXJJCLyUZx3LgCI4cj3Luk=; b=UpQawIkNe9oubwUtbUJBlsb3QYqc7jY2pkMjoMRifwTTEsDJ7G/0FJdW3irhVJuzzY /SAo88BSxBWpoaEmt+BKnbGoHLkmbh06DHrNC7YJElvnPOrWQ21ORx4KyPTqlHnK2YZO OMvhmVz0eua2Rj1fwCA/8wAtGzvdBuJQXBH86O2k+c1creEHxSrp90U1VQos4h0C7VWv 7NMzzNDIp+t5soZle00HrzjZTnpsF+F/8AyNU5+z0C1tr2NnQFWhvDxH/vtePN6ZFIic scrg3NhpoZyZQ9pXzbVgbS3tifIpsE+LWeRhFdr7lHHIQ5/AXAoQs2YvWP/XEjv+h9Gk 2ORw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlE2P4ViSeIFIxbpG0Xe5xGB6DJJxdtyPbz48u7rFl1UP26+DsPquc0IZEbEFe+XiAhv+PM
X-Received: by 10.50.30.227 with SMTP id v3mr3612200igh.24.1418147561421; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:52:41 -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 x10sm1181956igl.18.2014.12.09.09.52.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <548736AC.6000407@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:51:40 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <5487331F.8050404@bbs.darktech.org> <5487353D.8030106@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5487353D.8030106@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tOxs284QM9Ihu5MT2ou3Ikz_GA8
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
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: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:52:46 -0000

On 09/12/2014 12:45 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 18:36, cowwoc wrote:
>> On 09/12/2014 12:32 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>
>>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the 
>>> room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to implement both codecs, or 
>>> whether they conveniently think they don’t need to, and it’s just a 
>>> problem for other people to handle.
>>>
>>> Honestly, a +1 for “those other people should do it” is meaningless.
>>
>> That's a fair point. I'm guessing the vast majority of people 
>> answering on the mailing list only plan to implement one codec 
>> because they are non-browser implementors.
>
> No, that's not a fair point. I don't see most of the people making 
> taking decisions on other topics (SDP, FEC,  DTLS, CC, 
> SVC/Simulcasting/Multicasting, Plan A/PlanB/No plan) implementing them 
> themselves. So if this going to be the rule about who-can-vote-what we 
> should redefine the whole IETF process.
>
> Everyone should be aware of what are they voting and what is the 
> amount of burden/costs it requires to be implemented, and see how that 
> will contribute to the success/failure of webrtc and vote accordingly. 
> Not just in this topic, but in any topic.

Sergio,

I think this warrants a discussion. It might not be very politically 
correct to say so, but I support the idea that only those who are 
implicated should have a say. The alternative leads to armchair politics 
and bikeshedding.

That said, I echo Simon's point that until Apple and Microsoft 
officially declare their intent to implement WebRTC they are not 
"implicated", hence they should not really get to vote. Sorry guys :)

Gili