Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Robin Raymond <> Thu, 14 November 2013 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442A21E8198 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.037
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ourmR3wnBnA2 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D9721E819C for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u56so1317545wes.18 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=L7PDFqL3LdaYoWB7kOrnf3V50iz1eJ2UrUQxRRSfkA8=; b=aKuH7RxZlYgVnxu5FuvR3GJFnfKWY3sUXllYrJFQt0km/+RKlHDnOP/yMZ7oXAOd6t 6ZeSKT2mFVdlowdZ8Oo/qO3odedIy10qhfZllpGz4MRh2BGWYCPNDc9ov2BrNRwdFep3 JdNNcH7mwuwB3i8j48oKGahW+eUfKnvvOSIQ3jCsaJU4aRpBGPhajVql6hFoexs0JISI yi6LQL3ZHKFEvi8d1C8e251/O9ssbeMIJmzTHj897sx+S5f+V/KNFsbXVA3haSBnEplW fX3616ogxIBdd1qw72A6XBLAK2bIF7qL7MK86fzSkrjja/wMJGVKPykYDDSxSwqsBRUZ /63w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnEKFzRuwDlmlEQd+phngi2uAFzsL7rPx+H7CjsrUeLrosTRMoKjDhrA8M3Bp9F1jkeZB7E
X-Received: by with SMTP id fc2mr314288wic.43.1384403690210; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Robins-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id y20sm2421367wib.0.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:34:45 -0800
From: Robin Raymond <>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cb.list6" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080406020300090304030508"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:34:57 -0000

+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.


> cb.list6 <>
> 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