Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 25 November 2013 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 315391ADF8F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:52:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 q_vwgqkFKIZr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9361ADF8B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id rAPJpgpB026611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:51:43 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.177]) by 008-AM1MMR1-005.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.60]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:51:42 +0000
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, <lgeyser@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?
Thread-Index: AQHO6el3zh0x+Oo+JEKGxZr6eIAkvpo2Ad0AgAADrYCAAFLU4A==
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:51:41 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A13302B@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <52935C89.5040408@ericsson.com> <CAGgHUiQnkQKkc-ptMu6DtfUYJY6N9i7PUaeAqKxp96nB2MQBGA@mail.gmail.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only;
x-titus-version: 3.5.9.3
x-headerinfofordlp:
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IsMYwYvlwi0oDC9KWeaffsyIqSM6i1RvMWxEVWdTMAiDuLl4R2XRL+W/F+Rptl0GQyNem2vlgPR5spFae1YB2IoUNlHEGP9qsaa4wSKZBFF5xlAhEPuBjETMgvK6bzwQhofhWsILbGqK4SftpgbtePOYEgA5eTAX+hFl0NKm6dIgUS8h2lTQZ4ND5gd6eN7TFM5MywMoTFONrOlJOA7HQx5+7e2LzSm9fYlyNV5G1P91sc6CPdGepWRoj74WBlJWag==
x-originating-ip: [10.163.30.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:52:33 -0000

Hi,

magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com wrote:
> 
> On 2013-11-25 15:30, Leon Geyser wrote:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > Was H.263 a typo?
> > I agree that 10 can be changed to:
> > 10. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261}
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> I did a mistake in this call. I missed that 10 and 11 talked about H.261 and
> H.263 respectively.
> 
> I think the above question of writing 10 in the above proposed format is then
> the relevant question to the WG.
> 

I agree that alternatives 10. and 11. are better to be written in the same format:

10. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261}
11. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}

I assume H.264 CBP = Constrained Baseline Profile as proposed in draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal.

For H.263 we would need to define if it means H.263 Baseline or something beyond that. I have seen at least Stephan Wenger arguing that H.263 Baseline is not suitable for WebRTC. 

Markus