IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 D529E1A8734 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TsAHLeaHj5sB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71E081A8713 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so18310406wgg.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eZNF6oSurkWqRhUSjdk9jAF5x5qyN0nuCy4aIoKWJZY=; b=BeTYFFUyIreziBAko/QcOiaQbT7YOUBa/e//VO/yRqT7RuBKRp3RqrSWzmbd8f2WOO o/ZPM/cjqWS0cogm84YEW0kJ64cZkVPuPyJQnShES/Bmu4YQ41vliNQVsYmMxoR5Eake 0Ju99ljY8gcbV2P8Nw47HBS2QSv4+yt+WodE9JNzOcuQQC2S1DLHNw7dd8f1KZiACRJp 1KkkQOckhWNYOQeYLR6VzdRj1ot670Hs9sNaGZRgI9olrKgkUThOJNuyTSuBp5ToTWAv K4ANBLrFK1RUjEbJE6T+u4WZmQ2v1l7AOzD8+T02dOZOtI4DnB9edQP81GVOlrGIVOtk qikQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsqEfv9JcDxb29idxRZ/DxCu0IK91APOexl1cnnV7YvXw52AuyEE1RrzpZDRuf96Oi2oU+
X-Received: by 10.180.91.136 with SMTP id ce8mr7570504wib.29.1418758352239; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com. [74.125.82.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ej10sm3290609wib.2.2014.12.16.11.32.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l18so18016788wgh.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.2.75 with SMTP id 11mr53762088wjs.78.1418758350725; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.191.202 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:32:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363463@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <CABcZeBNDiDyYtv_0vZyO_mGuFi-dn4s0CXEo1agMmRSvsLNR8w@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363463@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:32:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxscDvS7SURWido5k5tsVhmMwWU7kVvGqEcTSdAMkWw8Fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a834c846cbd050a5a6b5f"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/uad_gxCptAm9ORFTKI_EVtjPgqA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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, 16 Dec 2014 19:32:40 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <
gmartincocher@blackberry.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  I think what has not been discussed is a differentiated text for both
> codecs.
>
> VP8 to be deprecated if failing to meet RF statements from proponents
>
> H264 to be deprecated when not used anymore by legacy services in
> accordance with H264 proponents statements
>
>
>
How about
VP8 to be depreciated if it fails to pass the ISO or other standardization
process or if licensing is confirmed in court to be a non royalty free.
H264 to be depreciated if VP8 passes the standardization process and
confirmed to be royalty free, unless H264 becomes royalty free as well?
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email