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

Thanks.

I would propose profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of
http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/

Sincerely,
Gaëlle

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com<mailto:gmartincocher@blackberry.com>> 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:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Gaelle Martin-Cocher
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund; Emil Ivov
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
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:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:33 AM
To: Emil Ivov
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
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  +46 10 7148287<tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079<tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com<mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
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
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
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
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
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.