IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 9021E11E81DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:27:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 0P+jjDoaNXbH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AF311E81CD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:27:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=967; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383672458; x=1384882058; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=W5+b3LCjdaN8g5q7biC8wELC26zAWogu4XmHKZYTjoA=; b=HbfgeRtvJa8DOzC67GzRYI4fj8CCfKK2eLiOngBOp9TDeyteMEVt28ay Kx/+m4HMh/7CgzlCm8uzVirKkpsHSjxTTNjrceznskp4rHeHaVsCnHSPB l8VF4VxZ39iDVkTYN+VBjeCIZ3eGKjxyJpq6cDVe8k58+Jh9RIclA0bKC 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFADcqeVKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U75tS4EsFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE3NAsSAQgYHjEGCyUCBAENBRSHWwMPDbR3DYlnBIxngnIHhC8Dlh+Ba4xShTeDJoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,640,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280992688"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 17:27:16 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA5HRGtO030615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:27:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.50]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:27:15 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
Thread-Index: AQHO2kxFGh+JzgPRUEOKvqjNfmPjeg==
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:27:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXKNJ_QRuV8vmKTJw5yZfcmwThhZ9t6GcgFWOJ7ePJNbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.82.253.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <85BAA397AE99C8459120763F8417F7E5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:27:50 -0000

This is an important point the chairs must clarify. If there is strong
support for both questions, will the chair interpret that as support for 2
MTIs, or declare no consensus, forcing us into alternative processes? I
support both as MTI. But if raising my hand twice increases the likelihood
of an alternative process, I will only support one (despite objecting to
being forced to support only one).

Mo


On 11/5/13, 9:46 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5 November 2013 06:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?


If I were to pretend that I am a process wonk, I might say something
like: if the objections to both questions are weak AND if the
objectors are unable to find reasons that pass muster.
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email