IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <aallen@blackberry.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 D05661A1A13 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:57:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 a7tsONNNPIPk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE921A004C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct106cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.206]) by mhs214cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Dec 2014 18:57:51 -0500
Received: from XMB122CNC.rim.net ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by XCT106CNC.rim.net ([fe80::d824:6c98:60dc:3918%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 18:57:50 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
Thread-Index: AQHQEJCKEBti1FXXNkmH1ALOez9gJ5yGNFiAgAAoiQD//6yQEIAAWRUA////TjA=
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:57:49 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AD2A@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <5485CC5B.2030104@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxtE1b-U_3oabjor=0jG5L4Z_9Rf_1cXsGQPXjp12x=Z0w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998A6A5@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <5485F318.2090707@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <5485F318.2090707@andyet.net>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.252]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9CRnSxWrp62YtONu09FZAUW05nM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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, 08 Dec 2014 23:57:55 -0000

We didn't define two audio MTI codecs for interoperability between RTCweb compatible devices. 

We defined OPUS as MTI for interoperability between RTCweb compatible devices and G.711 for interoperability with just about everything else out there (i.e with Legacy). Much to the consternation of some of my colleagues in the mobile industry I have been proactive in the audio codec discussion on resisting IETF defining any additional audio MTI codecs to these two.

Selecting H.264 as the single MTI for video would have fulfilled both the RTCweb interoperability and the legacy interoperability .

It also should be noted that G.711 is trivial to implement and does not have IPR concerns (G.711 is in that respect the equivalent of H.261 in the audio codec world).

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:51 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

On 12/8/14, 11:34 AM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear from my statements in the IETF session on 
> this topic and on this list that I don't support having two MTI  video 
> codecs for any WebRTC entity and I don't think it is technically 
> justified. But I state this here formally.

To those (not just Andrew) who are opposed to two MTI video codecs: were you also opposed to two MTI audio codecs? I'm trying to understand the differences between audio and video here...

Peter

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email