IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 03:27 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 538A21AE069 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3AsD08LnLZuk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACEA1AE043 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU169-W24 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s36.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:27:09 -0800
X-TMN: [QUNvzYULLYM8YLEGMIVbnL/xGqTTtWXv]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_191ad7f2-45f7-4255-a3c1-56c5daf50558_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:27:08 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com>
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com>, <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>, <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com>, <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2013 03:27:09.0075 (UTC) FILETIME=[64E79630:01CEE5A0]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:27:16 -0000

Maik said: 

>   - implementing the codec of "the other codec camp" is more desirable
>   - the end-users will appreciate spuriously failing video calls

[BA] The above are not the only choices, because it is not necessary to "implement the codec of the other codec camp" in order to provide support for it.  The Cisco offer of an H.264 encoder/decoder is only one example.  
 
So really, the choice is more between "support codec extensibility and allow 'the other codec camp' to take risks they are comfortable with" and "implement an inferior codec no one wants".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email