Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

"Cavigioli, Chris" <chris.cavigioli@intel.com> Thu, 16 October 2014 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.cavigioli@intel.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 CF3181A8848 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 PpVez08uh4dx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4777C1A87A4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 15:30:47 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="401516178"
Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2014 15:33:32 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.73]) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:40:50 -0700
From: "Cavigioli, Chris" <chris.cavigioli@intel.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
Thread-Index: AQHP6YalvH0vdbAWv0eULyOYAeS/S5wzsnSAgAAJmQD//5R0IA==
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:40:50 +0000
Message-ID: <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD2400329E2@fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.107]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/5csjb1fqpUPibYxxnU6L6Umh9ZQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:41:14 -0000

I completely agree.  MTI is wasting time, given we know the industry is split between H.xxx and VPxxx ... and given we know that H.264/VP8 will become H.265/VP9 rapidly ... we need to ensure WebRTC works with various codecs and guide the industry towards VP8, H.264, VP9, H.265 (not some other variant).  There will be some vendors who support both formats and some who don't.
-chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Martin Thomson
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could actually interoperate regardless of the codec.



> On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply 
>> because wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than 
>> actually finishing a specification that can be independently 
>> implemented by all browser vendors? (A specification that we are 
>> nowhere near having, as far as I can tell)
> 
> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And 
> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd 
> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend 
> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting 
> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb