IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.com>
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 85C801AE18E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 jdS_r-J31wAE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server209.appriver.com (server209c.appriver.com [8.31.233.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BAA1AE02E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:35:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Note-AR-ScanTimeLocal: 1/10/2014 3:35:48 PM
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Primary: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide
X-Virus-Scan: V-
X-Note-SnifferID: 0
X-Note: TCH-CT/SI:0-80/SG:2 1/10/2014 3:34:50 PM
X-GBUdb-Analysis: 0, 162.209.16.214, Ugly c=0.824783 p=-0.973262 Source White
X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-10599-c
X-Note-419: 624.02 ms. Fail:0 Chk:1345 of 1345 total
X-Note: SCH-CT/SI:0-1345/SG:1 1/10/2014 3:35:39 PM
X-Note: Spam Tests Failed:
X-Country-Path: ->UNKNOWN->LOCAL
X-Note-Sending-IP: 162.209.16.214
X-Note-Reverse-DNS:
X-Note-Return-Path: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: User Rule Hits:
X-Note: Global Rule Hits: G327 G328 G329 G330 G334 G335 G445
X-Note: Encrypt Rule Hits:
X-Note: Mail Class: VALID
X-Note: Headers Injected
Received: from [162.209.16.214] (HELO mail.vidyo.com) by server209.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.2) with ESMTPS id 88225492 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:35:48 -0500
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::250:56ff:fe85:4a71%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:35:47 -0600
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHO9QOHxNjKWCrr5UGPQJlHhxL5A5p/AaIA
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:35:46 +0000
Message-ID: <246A6F60-F8EF-4EC1-9336-BAAA24498863@vidyo.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <035540E07F23F84F8740A4821200EF75@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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, 10 Jan 2014 20:36:01 -0000

On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> 	• All entities MUST support H.264
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Yes
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

> 	• All entities MUST support VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Yes
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

> 	• All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Acceptable
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain.

> 	• Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Acceptable
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain; distinction between browsers and other entities is unclear.

> 	• All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Will not achieve interoperability

> 	• All entities MUST support H.261
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Insufficient quality for RTCWeb use cases.

> 	• There is no MTI video codec
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Yes
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Effectively this means deferring the decision to either another organization or the marketplace, which are likely better able to make the decision than the IETF is.

> 	• All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Will not achieve interoperability with sufficient quality for RTCWeb use cases.

> 	• All entities MUST support Theora
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No.
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Marginal quality for RTCWeb use cases, with no IPR advantages over VP8.

> 	• All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain; will not achieve interoperability with sufficient quality for RTCWeb use cases

> 	• All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Acceptable (0.2)
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain; H.263 is marginal quality for RTCWeb use cases, with minimal IPR advantages over H.264.

> 	• All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Acceptable
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain.

> 	• All entities MUST support H.263
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
Acceptable (0.3)
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Marginal quality for RTCWeb use cases, with minimal IPR advantages over H.264.

> 	• All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No.
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Unnecessary duplication of engineering effort for little to no technical gain; Theora is marginal quality for RTCWeb use cases, with no IPR advantages over VP8.

> 	• All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No.
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Marginal quality for RTCWeb use cases, with no IPR advantages over VP8.

> 	• All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
> 		• Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
No.
> 		• Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Insufficient quality for RTCWeb use cases.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email