Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 05 November 2013 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.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 B7FC221F9E51 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:01:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 PEfc-XBp8bpC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A8211E8127 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id aq17so15105880iec.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NjLvaV6+r+g5uZFT2mKqQUFZwP5kJN7Uu7BqKJ3GfEg=; b=TylbTgKWoy2OQJ3gPNv0wwGGAQ1wpBLucLp6d75YF7nht9PCe5nY1XQ1f7DgVXxN8z wpk8AXJGsLJRYa2K/1bhzQthwJngGgXx9KuV8p4TxdzRMu0N4G01jp9Tt9dcywLXQFBk iqF6kWYG/wk6oIBbXQMOF/YASt9RWWKUNgu++V+ZLtmobXHOqvOyCN/B0sQWh0YVC5qR oluf2zDB4696CFq7vBycRu3rU2ShncB6/XwTPydWwa6KYbHSXITlq2kn04+Zl42McvlT JSYMHaGb8QLVrHHQXJSRMyy+WC2MGknK7gbvakKXsd7y8HnC7QA5VASQpbZHGKvSjzrp zNHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqJ/p8CIBo0ElKqSwj6OXF9MbkXgDLYAEldXhmATEO5udblb26815/OYKGCFN6jx4ZIYxq
X-Received: by 10.50.30.66 with SMTP id q2mr9038392igh.17.1383674503145; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c14sm8760309ign.0.2013.11.05.10.01.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52793283.3020809@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:01:39 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAGgHUiS326saNJ7-0RmVQXYaJBW6Qmo=r9-oYmGiUzP-sDTcXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com> <CAGgHUiR3e5fQTC+qOUqP7imnQ4w8g_dwRR9gsU2rAiKp9FMiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiR3e5fQTC+qOUqP7imnQ4w8g_dwRR9gsU2rAiKp9FMiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:01:53 -0000

On 05/11/2013 12:21 PM, Leon Geyser wrote:
> >>Any implementation can refuse to implement any MTI, whether it is 1 
> or 2. I see more good than harm by mandating both.
> Mandating 2 is just as good as mandating 0. I just don't get the logic 
> of mandating 2.

     If new IPR issues bubble up for H.264 or VP8 we're free to drop one 
of the MTI codecs and fallback on the other. If we only have a single 
MTI codec, we have no way to drop it and therefore we're forced to pay 
royalties to whomever decided to sue.

Gili