Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 18:45 UTC
Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 3E2BA1AE063 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 F3lFcK4MR46F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x230.google.com (mail-ee0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD751AE04D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e49so4203873eek.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JMdUY4btTHDguqC/spuK6V6Y7oEelV/1H4HDNggyqpQ=; b=MIjF2QEBtpsL9NPsXmmdyqc/gxBc7OB3e/WfTGIVNEQIzuTMz55QLqKlgQ1tByrJka z5gyZXy7q4+8fjtu4yUHZnPg01deZ1x0Z3vaGNXMqoS5aG3IZrEK7D2ROp0Qr1Pha3Sg yg4U5wNN4uNMN7hR8x/PZuZOcO5z4lNcvX78E6RqMykBfQ1mYgLFqkZRsgnS69f6L2Gr e7Oju7tN8FuJDiWHg6dwsZhW982RFl1W+GH57KOhmX3aVfuD4yiG/8ThAMPTpSTPsIHv lpmbJF/a06tk1+5ZjOQcjlTog1GRnTYrnd4GTW2AJplkjRQmhreuVkNLtOzo4UR8e4G/ btUw==
X-Received: by 10.14.205.8 with SMTP id i8mr2764024eeo.19.1384973144401; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (dslb-188-101-189-061.pools.arcor-ip.net. [188.101.189.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h48sm6530538eev.3.2013.11.20.10.45.42 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528D0355.3090603@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:45:41 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com>, , <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>, , <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com>, , <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com>, <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl>, <528C79AD.10608@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:45:53 -0000
Dear Bernhard, I'm completely with you regarding that a reliable mechanism for multi-codec handling is needed, no matter the outcome of the codec discussion. After all, everybody will want to deploy new codec technology in the future. I also think that pressure from customers will eventually lead to transcoding services being offered to serve as a bandaid in case no consensus can be achieved. I'm saying "bandaid" here, because I suspect that in practice such transcoding services will introduce costs (which may not be acceptable to new players), increase latency (always not so nice), and possibly introduce single points of failure (nasty for everyone). Reliance on such services would be a admittance of failure regarding P2P interoperability. (Personally, I would consider it a grave specification bug if users cannot reliably establish even a basic, direct video call, with every involved entity adhering to the spec and network conditions permitting.) You're of course right that mandating something without consensus cannot possibly be solution. I'm just hoping there's consensus that P2P interoperability does matter. From my point of view H.261 is an option that can enable (very) basic video interoperability (engineering perspective) and also is trouble-free regarding IPR (legal perspective, which appears to be what's making consensus on codecs difficult). Having a solution that engineers can implement and lawyers can agree to seems to be a rare constellation. It's up to implementers to decide if they are willing to make use of it to achieve basic interoperability. Best regards, Maik Am 20.11.2013 18:44, schrieb Bernard Aboba: > Maik said: > > > Cisco's offer, while certainly useful in some (or even many) application > > contexts, cannot cover all relevant deployment scenarios. > > [BA] I'd note that the current IETF discussion of MTI video codecs is > somewhat similar to a previous discussion in W3C relating to the MTI > codec for streaming video. In that previous discussion, advocates of > the potential MTI codecs offered to implement their preferred codec for > other browsers. So if past is prologue, other offers may emerge over time. > > > Without a fallback codec there will be negotiation failure in ways > that are out of control of the affected users. > > [BA] In practice, negotiation failure is annoying enough that customers > and users are going to demand that it be addressed in some fashion. > This could be via native implementation of multiple codecs, via codec > plugins as Cisco has proposed, or via on-premise or cloud-based > transcoding solutions as Justin has described. Given the penalties > that the marketplace will impose on services that don't address > interoperability in some fashion, it seems to me that the issue is very > likely to be addressed in practice, at least for commercial services. > > On the other hand, attempting to impose a solution that has no real > consensus could do real damage, by diverting resources away from > implementing leading edge codecs (e.g. VP9 and HEVC) or polishing the > WebRTC protocol specifications so as to fully enable multi-codec > support, which is going to necessary whichever camp you're in.
- [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gustavo Garcia
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jeremy Fuller
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Ross Finlayson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] H.263 licensing situation Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software cod… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Steve Kann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selection - … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Roman Shpount