IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

"Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com> Tue, 14 January 2014 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mandyam@quicinc.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 39FED1AE077 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:12:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 uucN37x8gpT1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E02B1AE074 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:12:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=quicinc.com; i=@quicinc.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1389708715; x=1421244715; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=oE4RYUF7brttAaEl9hYWD9sKkSq2uHJ9y82GWHYyfv8=; b=S/ocYx/unojvAMzvnSlmwA1ZCaXT0pqZ1QAj0Wy/QSVkMUDJW5dmNU6m Kgu0ge5BKreu91XNq9h5egIloaRTS0qxSyNxI0pED1Km4Jb4oO6YD7LrU 95pY0/xTg8VMGqDqhwwyRbpwdbH0xVk8RzOa2pbbUrCUTCZDTc50ZxfOj k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7317"; a="58074591"
Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2014 06:11:55 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7317"; a="25664355"
Received: from nasanexhc15.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.52.215]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 14 Jan 2014 06:11:54 -0800
Received: from NASANEXD01H.na.qualcomm.com ([169.254.8.27]) by nasanexhc15.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.52.215]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:11:54 -0800
From: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
Thread-Index: AQHPERnU0rfFoQaUE0GUmUyGqXlL+pqEQnNA
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:11:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A167346A6@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A1672E8F2@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <52D51C28.9020907@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <52D51C28.9020907@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [199.106.115.192]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A167346A6nasanexd01hnaqu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
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, 14 Jan 2014 14:12:08 -0000

Harald,
Agreed - this response is inconsistent.  My apologies.  The objection should've simply stated that "VP8 standardization is incomplete"  (although I know that you are trying your best to address this issue).
-Giri

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:15 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

On 01/12/2014 06:00 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony. VP8 standardization is incomplete.
I have a problem interpreting the first sentence in the objections here.

If a system implements H.264, as required under this option, why would it not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony?

And if it would not allow that, wouldn't that also be an objection to option 1 (H.264 only)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email