Re: [rtcweb] on Svein Yngvar Willassen 's choices was- Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Mon, 13 January 2014 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 5698B1AE114 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:49:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6] autolearn=no
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 AaOrXboc_ucX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D87D1ADFA7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 38860 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2014 13:48:59 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 9139
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 13 Jan 2014 13:48:59 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3294C18A03A8; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:48:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E903F18A028A; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:48:58 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_67156709-AEE4-4A35-B03C-5F13C30A1C3F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJcPMnnbnA+xpddBjykBE-T17EdQ=8waSFYq-Bg8biq78Mz2cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:48:57 +0000
Message-Id: <B920D822-FFB1-4139-9818-C2158D4E5BA6@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <52D0325E.5080305@tele.no> <CAJcPMn=rhL1cF1pfX=JdVzLOaAsXRxEEw5VbZZeOx9y5VOhsUQ@mail.gmail.com> <AC52512D-2823-48A8-A8E9-1B5DFF7B4C3A@phonefromhere.com> <CAJcPMnnbnA+xpddBjykBE-T17EdQ=8waSFYq-Bg8biq78Mz2cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org >> rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] on Svein Yngvar Willassen 's choices was- Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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, 13 Jan 2014 13:49:14 -0000

On 11 Jan 2014, at 18:44, Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:51, Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in> wrote:
> 
> >
> >       • Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >               • Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
> >               • Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:  Not always having a common codec requires transcoding. This option will create a barrier for extending web based services to mobile devices.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how you see transcoding happening.
> The only occurrence I can see is where one non-browser app e.g. 'facebook for ios' implements only h264 and a different
> non-browser app e.g. 'linkedin for android' implements only VP8 AND users of these two apps choose to attempt to call each other.
> 
> I'd humbly suggest that the codec transcoding would be the least of their problems, it is unlikely that 2 single purpose apps
> will be expected to interop. It isn't even clear that it is desirable.
> That's kinda the point of the 'browser' distinction - it isn't about laptop vs mobile it is
> multi purpose vs single purpose. or Generic vs Dedicated.
> 
> Is all forms of browsing on all kinds of devices included in the term "Browsers", including WebViews embedded in other applications?  
> 

It depends on the intent of the application. If it is using a webview as a way to render a UI to a fixed application, no,it isn't a browser.
If it is using the webview as  a way of communicating with an open ended number of different types of endpoint, then it is a browser.
(per my definition).

> However, I'm not sure I would change my position should the answer to the above questions be yes. There may be other entities that are not browsers that should be interoperable with each other. Two different native video conferencing solutions could for example claim to be WebRTC compliant without being interoperable with each other. 

Agreed, that's why the open ended number of different types of endpoint test is important.

> 
> --
> Svein Willassen, ph.d.
> https://appear.in
>