Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

+1 as well. There is nothing of consequence that changed since this
discussion happened last time, so there is no possibility for the decision.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> + 1
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Cavigioli,
> Chris
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:41 PM
> > To: Bernard Aboba; Martin Thomson
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
> >
> > I completely agree.  MTI is wasting time, given we know the industry is
> > split between H.xxx and VPxxx ... and given we know that H.264/VP8 will
> > become H.265/VP9 rapidly ... we need to ensure WebRTC works with various
> > codecs and guide the industry towards VP8, H.264, VP9, H.265 (not some
> other
> > variant).  There will be some vendors who support both formats and some
> who
> > don't.
> > -chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:03 PM
> > To: Martin Thomson
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
> >
> > One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make
> > progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
> > actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
> > >> because wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than
> > >> actually finishing a specification that can be independently
> > >> implemented by all browser vendors? (A specification that we are
> > >> nowhere near having, as far as I can tell)
> > >
> > > Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
> > > it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
> > > suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
> > > our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
> > > agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>