Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Sat, 02 November 2013 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.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 E51D911E80F1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=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 5lIk78xhLteh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com (mail-pd0-f169.google.com [209.85.192.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7ED11E815C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q10so4866999pdj.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=We+kSOuhL2uJxaOWigRJorwcXT5+GiCdJySxkkQIGjU=; b=KVCQigI/9yMmsHd2kGB8EXPyXng3eX1BbMI/D7D0CVRDrXXO9l7QRl/TAypDUMUbcl f8B/r7GuNk1viOTxI/U2Mf4eirzjHYc01dVDVvmKKic9T3NL+3MjRc80FwG9bXBWa5Ri 776sQPHwZbMeWCQTgiQyRXcUKmwMABmuo8nM3V0z/wegudugzN0NK50Atzzgn66W264G bL8VYJcjK6p+xetR89yfj7r6wATPqoZ44xEG3wx4tFm2Oi2awiHr9oC4Dz6PyfvAdiXc WSKDbTcjM4tvWPvhZ/B22+0twdOfwEtPA192INC3fv5MLN1m4uZP66keToLQb2XZW6/r ozzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0DHCyJUhJqDSVH03ke/wHA6FaVSwQ8WLX1pq92if8ZbLH6syjYo0jPqJ6hZUuGyoUID9c
X-Received: by 10.67.24.7 with SMTP id ie7mr7529357pad.112.1383388492174; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qw8sm16010225pbb.27.2013.11.02.03.34.51 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rd3so5080275pab.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.162.167 with SMTP id yb7mr7796051pab.16.1383388491320; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.191.163 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.191.163 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:34:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaLpbWGZPBB1EMOPKQd_+t95bvG51NG4DnKhtEp1WSwRhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacbe709cb5ca04ea2f3bb5
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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, 02 Nov 2013 10:35:00 -0000

+1 for VP8 as MTI.

Compared to VP8, H.264 baseline is only marginally better than H.263. This
makes it hard to justify the inconvenience of post-installation additions.

The whole point of WebRTC was: NO PLUGINS NEEDED!

Let's not through this out the window.

Also, while Cisco's grant is quite interesting for certain scenarios it
could be very problematic for others. For example: enterprises where
installations are handled in a controlled and automated way (e.g. scripted
image deployment) and where subsequent Internet access could be limited for
various reasons.

Emil

--
https://jitsi.org

On 31 Oct 2013 19:48, "Harald Alvestrand" <hta@google.com> wrote:
>
> We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open source H.264
codec available and usable by the community. We look forward to seeing the
result of this effort.
>
>
> Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully open,
high-quality video codec that you can download, compile for your platform,
include in your binary, distribute and put into production today - is the
best choice of a Mandatory to Implement video codec for the WebRTC effort.
>
>
> Harald (sending this from my Google address)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>