IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] On video codec for rtcweb

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Fri, 23 March 2012 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.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 5063F21F851A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 IKyexSRQ3fi5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-mail03.mozilla.org (dm-mail03.mozilla.org [63.245.208.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE0821F8452 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.0.5] (c-69-181-137-38.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.137.38]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by dm-mail03.mozilla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8994AEDC0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F6C6DC1.7020606@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:34:09 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20120113 SeaMonkey/2.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4F6C5A5E.6050100@ericsson.com> <4F6C6138.6010908@mozilla.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB76219E813@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB76219E813@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On video codec for rtcweb
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: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:34:17 -0000

Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
> control. I believe those mostly use H.264. It's probably possible to use
> transcoders but so it is between browsers too. I'd say that even if couldn't

With a direct browser-to-browser connection, there is nothing sitting 
between them to do the transcoding. In the DTLS-SRTP case with identity 
verification, which I think a number of people here view as highly 
important, you are in fact _guaranteeing_ that nothing but the browser 
can encode or decode the video.

As for existing non-web video systems, I am happy to send them G.711, 
and no more, if all they wish to support is H.264. To me, interoperation 
beyond that is no more than a "nice to have". WebRTC was meant to be 
much more expansive than traditional telephony. If all WebRTC turns out 
to be is another vehicle for old-world video conferencing style systems, 
then we will have failed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email