Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

"Cavigioli, Chris" <> Wed, 17 December 2014 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0CD1A066C for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:43:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gbUIjcqSdABI for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FA71A03A5 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2014 17:43:38 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208,217";a="429922552"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2014 17:32:32 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:43:38 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:43:37 -0800
From: "Cavigioli, Chris" <>
To: Roman Shpount <>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
Thread-Index: AQHQGK9jwmTfi08o30OOuzngWBrEEpySU1grgACFjgCAAAOiAIAABDqAgAAN0ACAAAebgP//p56pgACLmACAAAzZgP//zWSA
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:43:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD240153977fmsmsx118amrcor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:43:40 -0000

+1    There is no such thing as a guaranteed IPR free codec.

From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:42 PM
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:56 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <<>> wrote:
Forget it.

You are making an attempt to reduce the entire issue to IPR, and the discussion prior to the last meeting had been wider that that, including issues of interoperability with endpoints outside webRTC.

As far as I am concerned an IPR free codec is irrelevant if I cannot talk to the endpoints I need to, and just concentrating on the webrtc community as the available endpoint may meet some deployers use cases, but not others.

There is no such thing as IPR free codec, unless you are talking about H.261 or MJPEG where IPR has expired. What we are looking for is a video codec with an acceptable quality (both VP8 and H.264 qualify) and reasonable licensing (both VP8 and H.264 have serious issues here). If it is confirmed the VP8 licensing issues are resolved (i.e. it went through the standardization process, all IPR declaration against it which prevent licensing are confirmed to not apply in court or due to some sort of licencing agreement), then VP8 is clearly superior. If H.264 fixes its licensing (i.e. present a clear, published, no royalty licensing terms with no use restrictions), it can be a superior codec. Legacy interop support is important, but to me at least, it is secondary to unrestricted use. Please see Opus vs AMR-WB+ for clear similarities.

Also, VP9 or H.265 would clearly  improve video quality, but both VP8 and H.264 with the current connection speeds allow for the highly usable video communications. I think that quality wise, either one of VP8 and H.264 can serve as usable MTI for a lot longer then the next two years or whatever time is required for the next great video codec to be developed. Especially in another 5-6 years when all the IPR on these codecs will expire.
Roman Shpount