Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 11 November 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 3053F1A1BCE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:37:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 LUBY3bj6p3Vj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:37:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7872E1A913E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A23B7C0045; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:37:15 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwoXHJLG2G7u; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:37:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:160:4805:b828:f652:a1bd] (t2001067c037001604805b828f652a1bd.wireless.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:160:4805:b828:f652:a1bd]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7D767C0023; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:37:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54627370.30203@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:37:04 -0800
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <1D5CFB04-2CCB-424C-A364-1CAA05E84D12@apple.com> <20141111011054.GR8092@hex.shelbyville.oz> <E18B79D1-D8C8-4A17-A2F0-93BDAAFED698@apple.com> <BE15C090-239F-45BC-8747-501AC86653B2@gmail.com> <5461A019.6030108@alvestrand.no> <1A6093A8-A7E9-4760-B790-CC767CAA2116@gmail.com> <546265E3.7060300@alvestrand.no> <546267B9.8020605@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <546267B9.8020605@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/72LPbUreOaNl8Sa7r8IvdNWfG7Q
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:37:43 -0000

On 11/11/2014 11:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 11/11/14, 12:39 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 11/10/2014 10:48 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 7:35 PM, Harald Alvestrand
>>>> <harald@alvestrand.no>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2014 07:19 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>> I do not get it either. It seems like mobile apps (which count as
>>>>> devices) using a WEBRTC stack now have to include both codecs
>>>>> regardless of whether they need them. Do we really think app
>>>>> developers will pay attention? Why should they?
>>>> Because they can then depend on interoperability with other
>>>> non-browsers?
>>> [BA] Isn't the non-browser in question the mobile app the developer
>>> wrote? Most of these apps only need to interop with the app on
>>> another platform, a browser app and/or their own service. So they
>>> typically only need one codec or the other not both.
>> I'm pretty certain that will be the most common scenario.
>>
>> I'm also pretty certain this will not be the only scenario; there will
>> be services that are usable from multiple applications.
>>
>> I don't want to foreclose that possibility.
>
> What is a non-browser mobile app or native app in terms of the entity
> taxonomy from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview? Is it a WebRTC device or a
> WebRTC-compatible endpoint?

The tendency in the room yesterday was to take the term "WebRTC device"
and replace it with "WebRTC non-browser".

Discussion also concluded that a mobile / native app is an example of a
"WebRTC non-browser"; the term "WebRTC native application" was also
suggested, but "WebRTC non-browser" had more support in the room.


>
> It's nice that people don't want to foreclose possibilities, but I
> think it's important to recognize that one person's desire might turn
> out to be someone else's significant work effort.

Or - more relevant - one person's desire might turn out to be someone
else's need to license codecs.....

>
> Peter
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.