IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Sat, 26 October 2013 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 6A43511E8191 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 L2Ch8RUDYBdD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720C111E81A0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id eo20so4043255lab.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NKfwj7DseGR+BMr2v5VrpeX9CBJ3+/Tlf6oV7WmloFg=; b=UyCemuNsZT5/A+avTwyXUFciyfHFTBqS8kAmLrbepEQ4+Y1F8PAivjFdQDe8JkFTtz M799GcKr8DRxnTGbzh8sFK7X9pMQwMqQ301mrzkIlGPP8Jr83i2L57b9t6O3eN6Hv0vK jpOOnEsOEuhbqHme4qp9r854sjAmqdfW+oFjVLeLIlIg6QiueZq5WGXTcQsXwt1wTi9k dj/HjrDcMfz4vvmKmSV8B2rVbgNVJZNX1aQvfTybzcXp5O9yk6a216jiq+x8AGI4Qeud EoYLrazz8R7dWzTjHCeHoQ+m+dQAJgVk9hTY3/eMT5a7/I4LgFWz3/k2buQB501TEac7 nC9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.132.70 with SMTP id os6mr235235lbb.38.1382802059161; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AB2CDC9E-ACC4-423D-B0C0-B51F2D839830@phonefromhere.com>
References: <52681A96.2020904@alvestrand.no> <526826AF.5030308@librevideo.org> <52690090.2050609@alvestrand.no> <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DFCD683@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4843D45DC08@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5269764C.4030801@librevideo.org> <52698758.5040404@bbs.darktech.org> <CAD6AjGSb5syh0HO+89fH8cGZ0zqM6gYLPj3aeTRQLN0u8W4cSg@mail.gmail.com> <5269F098.2020904@alvestrand.no> <CAD6AjGQTSeVYjP0V--sbbMUYvTJuzqqh3r+K-pwve7KkS4dSgg@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123CDD2CE@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <AB2CDC9E-ACC4-423D-B0C0-B51F2D839830@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:40:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiSDGp82fD-CquRQWN51vn2ujK8_ZzNcbg8KaLaxCeV0Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a836a87f5bc04e9a6b18b"
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
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: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 15:41:02 -0000

I don't think it is such a great idea, because it now places the plug-in
development away from the browser developers. The reason why I say that is
bad: Who says the plug-in maintainers will be willing to release a plugin
for each new browser that comes out on each platform? And how do we install
those plug-ins on mobile phones where we don't have access to the
application's isolated storage?
It probably could work somehow, but a lot of thinking would be required. It
will be easier just to mandate a MTI codec.


On 26 October 2013 17:11, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:

>
> On 26 Oct 2013, at 16:04, Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se> wrote:
>
> > Has a Video Codec Plug-in Slot been considered or discussed?
> > Wouldn't specifying such codec slots and making them mandatory for WebRTC
> > make (almost) everyone happy?
>
> A _very_ long time ago (in terms of the rtcweb efforts) I floated the idea
> of having codecs as javascript objects,
> which would then be manageable and replaceable in javascript, and could be
> implemented with technologies like NaCL. However at that time it was viewed
> as overly complex and taken no further.
>
> Tim.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email