Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
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 229D31AE04F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 wD6t7hybfRKT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9C71AE092 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBE3E65989C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:25:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528E8870.20706@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:25:52 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E5@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E5@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:26:04 -0000

It is impossible to completely avoid IPR issues altogether to everyone's
satisfaction.  But there are two camps that have emerged, that is to
say, one that says H.264 IPR issues are a no go, and those that say the
same for VP8 (mostly in light of contentment with either MPEG-LA's
licensing terms or Cisco's plugin/module).

So, both camps' concerns can be addressed by allowing each camp to still
implement their own preferences, while H.261 is presented as an option
to allow interop between those that fall strictly into one of the two
above camps, with H.261 being asserted as confidently possibly to be
implemented, albeit perhaps in a basic form, without much IPR concern
from anyone.

On 11/21/2013 05:13 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> But how does this avoid IPR issues? 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Fredrickson [mailto:creslin@digium.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:04 PM
> To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>;
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
> 
> I also agree with Ron's suggestion....
> 
> Implement 2 of 3 seems to be the best way to absolutely preserve interop.
> 
> Matthew Fredrickson
> 
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM,  <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>; wrote:
>> Would the implement any two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261} option solve your
>> problem?
>>
>> +1 for Ron's reasoning.
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 23:15, "ext Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
>> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
>> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>>> <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
>>>> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>>>
>>> More than one person has already.
>>>
>>> And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>>> spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>>> crappy.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 


-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org