IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies

Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it> Sat, 11 January 2014 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
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 01C371AE020 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:16:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.678
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Sfr_JY715PgO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TELEDG001RM001.telecomitalia.it (unknown [217.169.121.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252761AE01C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grfhub702rm001.griffon.local (10.19.3.9) by TELEDG001RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.19.3.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:16:24 +0100
Received: from MacLab.local (163.162.180.246) by smtp.telecomitalia.it (10.19.9.235) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:16:24 +0100
Message-ID: <52D16047.6040306@telecomitalia.it>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:16:23 +0100
From: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAHp8n2kq+_uG=9XwoAGtRgqYU2Asc2Fv6RZ0aCW6cJi-LnhD+A@mail.gmail.com> <52D04781.2030504@dcrocker.net> <CAHp8n2==5fOFnUsON3c5PwM7V2mR41uBSen8i5H-3YbQ19c=OA@mail.gmail.com> <52D0989A.2010408@dcrocker.net> <52D0B666.5070505@bbs.darktech.org> <52D15988.8060804@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <52D15988.8060804@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms020006000209080404050003"
X-TI-Disclaimer: Disclaimer1
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
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: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 15:16:41 -0000

On 11/01/14 15:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
>      I am curious about the claim of large-scale, existing WebRTC
> support, given that none of this working group's drafts has yet received
> IETF approval nor been published as an RFC.

Dave, unfortunately for us who spend a big chunk of our lives in, the
IETF does not have any exclusive right over the term "WebRTC". What the
rest of the world call "WebRTC" can be roughly defined as a media stack
that is implemented in two of the four major desktop and mobile
browsers. It's hard to estimate the size of the installed base, but the
numbers floating around are in the order of 10**9.

The IETF role in this as vast as controversial field is -- as it should
be -- document running code and help the search of rough consensus to
smooth the rough edges that prevent interoperability. Video codecs being
one of them.

Enrico

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email