Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
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 7775B1AE2AA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:00:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 5HJvmv8Ju8Ih for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BCD1AE2A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (d60-65-38-134.col.wideopenwest.com [65.60.134.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B373E6598E0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:00:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528EBAB0.2010906@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:00:16 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7ED@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <E62E1CAF-546D-4A0E-9339-D03D6C0BC1AE@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E62E1CAF-546D-4A0E-9339-D03D6C0BC1AE@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 02:00:37 -0000

On 11/21/2013 08:23 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
> Can someone remind me why classic H.263 (with possibly the minor tweaks for picture size limits etc.) is problematic?
> 

For exactly the same reasons H.264 (for some) and VP8 (for others) - IPR
issues due to not being old enough for anything patented in the standard
to be guaranteed to have expired.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org