Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
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 E701D21F8F86 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l+h1FdFQjMx3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A42021F8F37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id r2ECK5o1030418; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:20:08 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.23]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:19:09 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.2.232]) by 008-AM1MMR1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.23]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:19:08 +0000
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <adam@nostrum.com>, <D.Malas@cablelabs.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
Thread-Index: AQHOIG5nK5hZEqtrx0+EnSm6TS0GX5ilGeuw
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:19:07 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7623BDC4F@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <FEA80D86BEEC134D88CA45E53A0D3408180DA31B@EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com> <51415535.9040203@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <51415535.9040203@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.129.67.65]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2013 12:19:09.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[210E59B0:01CE20AE]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:20:14 -0000

Adam Roach wrote:
>
>On 3/14/13 00:18, Daryl Malas wrote:
>>  If VP8 is the only allowable codec
>
>We are not having, and will never have, a "mandatory not to implement"
>conversation.
>

Exect that there have been quite many statements by participants saying they will never implement a particular codec regardless of its merits or  benefits to the users, mainly due to IPR/cost reasons. So we do get a bit of that flavor. 

Markus