Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 12 November 2014 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 223461A88B7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:36:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 ZA6ZB2bnteFM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:35:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE54F1A885F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:35:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257F07C00BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:35:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEes9PM8q9q6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:35:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:176:4805:b828:f652:a1bd] (t2001067c037001764805b828f652a1bd.wireless-a.v6.meeting.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:67c:370:176:4805:b828:f652:a1bd]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7240F7C0051 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:35:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5462AB64.1070300@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:35:48 -0800
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <1D5CFB04-2CCB-424C-A364-1CAA05E84D12@apple.com> <20141111011054.GR8092@hex.shelbyville.oz> <E18B79D1-D8C8-4A17-A2F0-93BDAAFED698@apple.com> <BE15C090-239F-45BC-8747-501AC86653B2@gmail.com> <5461A019.6030108@alvestrand.no> <1A6093A8-A7E9-4760-B790-CC767CAA2116@gmail.com> <546265E3.7060300@alvestrand.no> <546267B9.8020605@andyet.net> <4E528337-ED7A-41ED-B196-A4CF6C4D84DF@phonefromhere.com> <54627964.7040709@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <54627964.7040709@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/BCBVYsIXBI6PfVZ7bnKkjNjElUQ
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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, 12 Nov 2014 00:36:03 -0000

On 11/11/2014 01:02 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> On 11/11/2014 3:13 PM, tim panton wrote:
>> My personal preference would be to replace ‘both’ with ‘either’ in
>> the device rule, but I understand
>> the thinking behind the ‘both’ phrasing.
>
> Same here. I would also prefer replacing "both" with "either" in the
> device rule. What is the practical benefit of forcing both codecs on
> non-browsers? If you proceed this way, won't most applications accept
> being declared non-compliant instead of investing the extra work/cost
> of implementing both codecs?
>
> Implementing both codecs only makes sense when you need
> interoperability between applications written by different authors.

Don't forget the case where one author wants to write the same
application in two different environments, and wants to use some
toolkits not written by himself.

If those toolkits don't support the same codecs ... he can't
interoperate with himself.

> The same argument does not apply when both endpoints are written by
> the same author. Furthermore, I would argue that when separate authors
> want their applications to inter-operate they will have the necessary
> incentive to make that happen, with or without the specification
> dictating how it should be done.
>
> Another spin on this would be to say: all libraries/platforms
> (abstraction layers used to write applications) must implement both
> codecs, whereas applications (end-users) can implement as many codecs
> as they'd like.

That would indeed be a possible spin, but a somewhat strange one.

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


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.