Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Sat, 16 March 2013 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.com>
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 6E5DC21F86C9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.77
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.828, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 MALuzGVLs37r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF1721F86C5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n8so3717231lbj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Wh23iFE96HqT99Rh89pH7Pj1ebR87S4qxLZrQ4F84ps=; b=DcYScDxXeAUpz8dsg/lwXJXGe9NAwhQiRpmpgFpxlFT/YNHFVoLg1N71HwflJGA3ZV dgNXxFPIbk4bIxGjdCBOYbUg5P1tNdHoVkwTKohFnY8p17SIZBorJ90XTlhR3Hsk4Uk8 2BPHI2oHrPqfii4+qI4hLUrjDk2ex1lHAsaSYqmCVo7C9IPubGV8Iz3WOnVggxrFvScA j7BmI2k9aryVx8WtWDN1jVTYpr6yk+qw9l4EOOv1mRNvTFrB1/EHuLLcF/OpV4ZHUMpW gPEBaUUn/RMzfE3gqQfZO3EMDkpM+EscYGp8ahVe5JQ8IbJvMNILTzAJJJayTwZ0udOe qfog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.108.1 with SMTP id hg1mr9731322lab.12.1363471344410; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.2.76 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU402-EAS287A23CE95CE9F7C2F324193EE0@phx.gbl>
References: <CAGgHUiQPNSOEtffncjXMozxPM70hL9N++sM=RkC6qVFGSFNREA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU402-EAS287A23CE95CE9F7C2F324193EE0@phx.gbl>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:02:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiR5Ht5drahWOMbYA9C7dApck73F=VdNMQHoBOT7XuLOdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee22425253104d811e96b
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
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, 16 Mar 2013 22:02:26 -0000

>
> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
> decisively
>

I don't see how that would address it unless the browser vendors really
care about interoperability. My browser implements the WebRTC without a MTI
video codec spec and implements H.264; why whould I care about the others?
I mean the <video> tag has been out there for ages and the marketplace did
not dictate that H.264 or VP8 should be implemented. It still is split and
probably will stay like that.

or if deployment is split, by support for (limited) codec extensibility


Sorry, I don't really understand. How would this '(limited) codec
extensibility' work?

On 16 March 2013 23:17, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 15:18, "Leon Geyser" <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion there really is a need for a MTI video codec for
> interoperability between browsers.
> >
> > Here are some scenarios on MTI decisions:
> >
> > -- Decide on no MTI codec:
> > This would split the browers in two sides.
>
> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the
> other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely
> will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other
> decisively, or if deployment is split, by support for (limited) codec
> extensibility.