Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/27/2013 04:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Could we please include also: All entities MUST implement at least
> two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, Theora}

In practice, how does this differ from the option of having Theora as
the single MTI?

	Jean-Marc

> Thanks, Silvia.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If we proceed with the vote, I would like to see the following
>>> choice: All entities must support H263.
>>> 
>>> Thanks Gaëlle
>>> 
>> 
>> I've updated the wiki to include this as choice 13.  If you have
>> a reference that we could use that specifies version, annexes, or
>> any other additional detail, we can include a pointer.
>> 
>> Ted
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gaelle 
>>> Martin-Cocher Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:29 AM To:
>>> Magnus Westerlund; Emil Ivov Cc: [e-mail] Subject: Re:
>>> [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection 
>>> alternatives
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Sorry for this late message, I was not available this past
>>> week.
>>> 
>>> It has been mentioned by a few of us that the risks on VP8 that
>>> some can't leave with, can be mitigated when VP8 becomes an ISO
>>> standard (via MPEG). VP8 has a chance to become an MPEG
>>> deliverable in January. I believe that could make a few of us
>>> more comfortable with supporting/mandating both H264 and VP8
>>> and could change the consensus reaching process.
>>> 
>>> Can we give VP8 that chance before forcing a vote?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Sincerely, Gaëlle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus 
>>> Westerlund Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:33 AM To: Emil
>>> Ivov Cc: [e-mail] Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any
>>> additional Video Codec Selection alternatives
>>> 
>>> On 2013-11-27 12:41, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>> Just to confirm, this is NOT the last day of discussion on
>>>> whether a vote is the right way to do this at all, right?
>>> 
>>> No, but tomorrow a week will have passed since we chairs sent
>>> out the proposal and solicited feedback on the proposal.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That sounds like it would still be an open question for step
>>>> two here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> 
As we stated in this message, after the week we chairs would update the
>>> process proposal if we considered it necessary. I believe there
>>> are some clarifications that needs to be done, including the
>>> voter eligibility.
>>> 
>>> After that the stated plan was to hold a consensus call in the
>>> WG to use the proposed process.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Magnus Westerlund
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone] SE-164 80
>>> Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail] 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> 
_______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>> information, privileged material (including material protected
>>> by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or
>>> constitute non-public information. Any use of this information
>>> by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>>> you have received this transmission in error, please
>>> immediately reply to the sender and delete this information
>>> from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>>> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is
>>> not authorized and may be unlawful.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>>> list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>> information, privileged material (including material protected
>>> by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or
>>> constitute non-public information. Any use of this information
>>> by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
>>> you have received this transmission in error, please
>>> immediately reply to the sender and delete this information
>>> from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>>> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is
>>> not authorized and may be unlawful.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>>> list [e-mail] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlmqtAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9ducH/RxSc3qp1tetc6u+PVfK9tJL
8/kcZ4CTIQLhC1mfePvaQYFj/C0E1pPzigHE9I6Nrm/WtdrRZ3Ww95NQMU4WzP2N
G9tUjczEdCp3nNpG0ADBYvb73Rgi9WhivzWRUqO7qW3ZUICi8TyfLKbYo1hflu0I
UwH9cB9eu2B3X6YVW2yJBfvl3bSql3+drGxivoo5ByllzsfE0G3njyx4RxeT9UKU
D8exv0OhMThFlBxXvyVJ59xm8p5CbXwuLKmnH6fAZJ23JVW3XZDhcV2Q0OUp6FPC
4zGQit7Wy1VPgRcl6oGTTKM/T4rH6BrUWsnwlJaIYmeN8uNtlrrhKPRfyuPNZOk=
=KR44
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----