Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Robin Raymond <[e-mail]>]

+1 to SHOULD option for both VP8 and H264.

MUST is too strong.

I think there's strong reasons why most people would include both and 
that's simply because of market forces and install base. Why be 
incompatible and make your product look weak and incompatible if there 
is a reasonable option. With Cisco's announcement that people who can 
take H264 likely will if they feel comfortable enough with IPR exposure. 
For those whom have IPR issues, they will either license or no amount of 
"mandate" is going to force them to accept exposure they aren't willing 
to risk even listed as an MTI.

"SHOULD" seems reasonable and logical to me with no MTI.

Robin



> cb.list6 <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 13 November, 2013 8:11 PM
>
> Why no SHOULD implement vp8 and h248? SHOULD means you will do it 
> unless you have a real good reason.
>
> MUST is too hard for this WG.  Many implementations have a really good 
> reason to not do vp8 OR h248.
>
> Saying that all webrtc MUST do one or the other or both is disingenuous.
>
> SHOULD for both is as good as we are going to get with this 
> complicated IPR environment.  Using MUST is simply not going to work 
> and we have 10,000 on this mailer to back that up.
>
> Cameron
>
>