IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <gmartincocher@blackberry.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 181191A8752 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:42:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 VCrTLHege9fE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:42:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA951A8751 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:42:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct105cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.205]) by mhs214cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 16 Dec 2014 14:42:10 -0500
Received: from XMB111CNC.rim.net ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by XCT105CNC.rim.net ([fe80::d13d:b7a2:ae5e:db06%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:42:09 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
Thread-Index: AQHQGK9hz+EPVQM3202R+pzBLk6Ke5yRiFAAgAAEJwCAAAEZAIAAAMsAgAAFmwCAAQrfwA==
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:42:09 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363518@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <548AFB1A.1040405@andyet.net> <548AFF76.1010003@nostrum.com> <CALiegfmH6hWp6nuArv8YyPcgq6SCd9x-dU0cxAaKJLrmb0hc_g@mail.gmail.com> <548B047F.9090704@nostrum.com> <56448CBD-FB31-4468-B449-497652FCAAEB@apple.com> <548B7EFF.5080105@andyet.net> <CALiegfkMUzQVOKk433d4TZtvenQWQwChYF2vc7HMED2s2wHZ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <B52D8E91-5D96-4960-8DDE-DD970014DE5D@ieca.com> <CALiegfnRvgDK4EnDBSn76YKktWLMjShsQRP6byCRqZC07WaVqw@mail.gmail.com> <548F0E28.8040503@andyet.net> <20141215192409.GN47023@verdi> <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>
In-Reply-To: <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.251]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/vUVGCAv-T-iO1HBGTgyzZU12Wak
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 19:42:12 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:45 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet; Ted Hardie
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

____
[1] To put a finer point on the necessity I mention here: in the straw poll last year, this option *without* the forward-looking provision received a mere 9% of participants supporting it, with 53% actively opposing it. The forward-looking provision is basically the "special sauce" that makes this approach palatable for some significant number of WG participants.


Since last year the situation has changed drastically with regards to codec access. I don't believe pointing at previous results make any sense and we could be very surprised if we were to ask again the same questions.
Gaëlle

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status