Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 19 October 2012 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 F1C5F21F8849 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I9THtHHlVnFJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6014621F875A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634BC39E106; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:42:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VswtWTNATWBP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D80F439E020; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <508182FF.1070107@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:42:39 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
References: <20121015163131.3756.11599.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <507C3C0E.7060006@alvestrand.no> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160F0374@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484160F0374@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090502090805090009000805"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:43:01 -0000
On 10/19/2012 06:06 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I see nothing in this draft which has changed the landscape as it > existed when these blog postings were made: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx May 3, 2010 > > http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx Likely May 19, 2010, although the article does not say so. Since WebM was open-sourced around May 20, 2010, which postdates these articles, I guess there isn't much that you would consider to have changed the landscape. > > I think that we should only seriously consider MTI codecs which have > been developed and improved within the context of an existing > standards body, for the multitude of technical and non-technical > benefits that process provides for those who ship the codecs in their > products. > > I will note, for instance, that the Opus audio codec is a > substantially better general-purpose Internet codec than SILK as a > result of following this process. If the video-codec BOF is a success, such a codec, which is also possible to practice without onerous, secret and/or expensive permission agreements, may exist 2 years from now. At the moment, if we want open, good and developed in cooperation with a standards body, it seems that we only get 2 out of 3. At most. > > Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Harald Alvestrand