Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 05 November 2013 22:03 UTC
Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 9FCB221E8160 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:03:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.921, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Q6-ToS93jQKu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C6821E80FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e14so16137265iej.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=GUTQL3S92NTKn8WuS49ahvRcN2svlM466pQmEJC/AsU=; b=bOL9gycAgSOWrmwiV0xmFqoWurVjV546jGAhigYDPgck0cHSF+nFVfXRnSHkEsnmaj lpvCJKg11j3pfdqZU8C+ybe5/ZXkixIwiCxh2RYsM8RYOwMyN7sMyOfCLyaoMVGhj4wE JEH4Uq8zCzOv7vDSaAHFAy/R+dw08swr09sC9rrGkBKDmLz+w23odDfmIEBgMQrODnbe Z+8VmQ5RY63IZ5x/CWmMFAGodPzRajDtELPEHnFHBjqbMlgbJk1a4tasSuBHZWlk3iSy 1pYiWLAbyIChnRStXnloU2OmwhbnxdoNeyf3CW9mKcGllRp2EsYfm0fTzt8fJXhcyaVv Q4Xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmg4Fv8xaL1//cSsVfsIH6g0gVppmCxBj4mDYLEOLDO7IWzuNSe4qV8Hmpbw1nGFgwXQ2f
X-Received: by 10.42.172.67 with SMTP id m3mr14961917icz.21.1383688992544; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm10585958igz.1.2013.11.05.14.03.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52796B1D.5030704@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:03:09 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com> <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com> <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org> <CA+E6M0mMs3WhwVtx5fgkAz_=u7U5cSd6ns+B9kY3UmboGkz2CA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+E6M0mMs3WhwVtx5fgkAz_=u7U5cSd6ns+B9kY3UmboGkz2CA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040500020202060900090907"
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 22:03:21 -0000
Mohammed, Your approach does not work for the typical browser-to-browser (P2P) connections. Gili On 05/11/2013 4:31 PM, Mohammed Raad wrote: > > Hi, > > Given the lack of agreement on a single MTI, for business reasons > primarily, and given that the debate is really focused on two > candidates, I suggest that a transcoding function between these two > codecs be defined at the service provider level. > > I suggest that the transcoding function only include the VP8 and AVC > CBP to make the development and use of this part of the service feasible. > > Having such a function would allow different organizations to make > their own decision about what works for them. I sense that different > experts have become entrenched in their respective positions with very > little freedom to make a change, for multiple reasons. I think it > should be clear that having transcoding at the service level would be > a reasonable compromise. Note that no end device would be required to > perform the transcoding, this would be done at the service provider level. > > BR, > Mohammed > > On Nov 6, 2013 5:07 AM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org > <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote: > > Cullen, > > In light of the fact that vendors are highly polarized on this > topic, I'd like to suggest the following voting order: > > 1. Should *both* H.264 and VP8 be MTI? > > If there is a consensus for yes, stop here. > > 2a. Should *only* H.264 be MTI? or, > 2b. Should *only* VP8 be MTI? > > If there is a consensus for either one, stop here. > > 3a. Should *only* H.261 be MTI? or, > 3b. Should no codec be MTI? (this implies transcoding) > > Given the final choice (H.261 or no MTI) I suspect many > vendors would choose H.261 and upgrade to H.264/VP8 at runtime. No > one really wants to go back to the days of transcoding. > > Gili > > On 05/11/2013 12:44 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > > Right now there is no proposal on the table for the MTI to be > both VP8 and H.264 and the deadline was back in October so > it's not a topic the chairs feel ready to discuss in the > thursday meeting. > > I will note that in the past when this idea was discussed, the > people who were concerned about IPR for either codec pointed > out that this could only increased, not decreased, the IPR > concerns. > > The chairs are more concerned about neither choice being > acceptable. If we found out that both are acceptable, that > will be a good situation and we will find a reasonable way to > proceed from there that is acceptable to the WG. Alternative > process is the last resort. From a chair point of view, it > really better if people actually honestly answer the question > in a consensus call instead gaming the system. > > Cullen - Just one of the chairs and I hope my co-chairs add > more but they are both in meetings right now > > > On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" > <mzanaty@cisco.com <mailto:mzanaty@cisco.com>> > wrote: > > 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 > <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 5 November 2013 06:18, Hutton, Andrew > <andrew.hutton@unify.com <mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Leon Geyser
- [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Wolfgang Beck
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Karl Stahl
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Mohammed Raad
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI Martin J. Dürst