Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264

>While VP8 might give you what you want in webrtc islands, it would not be able to communicate outside those islands, where the predominant codec is still H.248.

If we choose the H.248 codec, we also need to choose an MTI encoding: text or binary ;)

Regards,

Christer

________________________________
From: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 October 2013 10:05
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Cc: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; harald@alvestrand.no; DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

It would be nice if video just works for the end user instead of them having to install a different browser or buying a different device with a different browser.

I personally think there needs to be a MTI video codec even if it is an old codec such as H.261. Although the codec should not require a lot of bandwidth to look decent which excludes something such as MJPEG.

On 25 October 2013 10:50, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Agree

We can either explicitly make a "no MTI" decision, or just let it become the default by the absence of agreement.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>
> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com<mailto:Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
> Sent: 25 October 2013 09:04
> To: harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>; rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
>
> Hi,
>
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > Formalistically, the people who argue for abandoning an
> MTI, like the
> > people who argue for adapting an antiquated codec, have not
> put in a
> > draft by the chairs' deadline of October 6, so have not
> made a proposal.
> >
> > But I'm not the one who argued for this to be put on the
> agenda for 2 hours.
> > The people who pushed for this to be on the agenda for 2
> hours need to
> > come forward and say why they believe this is a good use of
> our time.
> > I haven't yet heard a VP8 proponent saying so.
> >
>
> I thought it has been mainly the VP8 proponents who have
> insisted to continue this discussion and have it on the agenda.
>
> I am a H.264 proponent but it's clear to me there is no
> consensus, no substantially new information since March, and
> for that reason the IETF should not pick either H.264 or VP8
> as *mandatory*. And consequently 2 hours is too much time for this.
>
> It is useful to discuss pros and cons of H.264 and VP8 and
> compare them, since most likely every WebRTC endpoint will
> implement at least one of them, but I think we need to stop
> pushing for the decision of mandating one of them.
>
> Of course, if we come back to this issue every November, we
> can eventually choose H.264 as mandatory, after all of its
> IPR has expired :-)
>
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> 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