Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

As that statement has never been put to a decision, you cannot say it is a goal, or is not a goal. 

It is just plain not determined.

Keith
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> Basil Mohamed Gohar
> Sent: 15 December 2013 03:02
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264's high-low play (Was: H.264 IPR 
> disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))
> 
> On 12/14/2013 04:29 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 1:16 PM, cowwoc 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> On 14/12/2013 3:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While I'm all for vp8, this argument is a far shot. I 
> actually think 
> >>> that the longer we wait, the easier it will be to pick vp8.
> >>>
> >>> Did you notice that the only objection to choosing vp8 
> that returns 
> >>> in the survey is the Nokia ipr statement? There is no mention any 
> >>> more of lack of hw support? When Google makes the binary 
> offer that 
> >>> Cisco made for h264, that goes away. I wonder what 
> objections will remain??
> >>>
> >>> Time is actually on the side of royalty free in this case faict.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think there is a bit of a fallacy at play here. H.264's 
> installed 
> >> base in the context of WebRTC is exactly zero. Why? 
> Because there is 
> >> no meaningful encoder support on any platform.
> > 
> > "Installed base" here also means the very large number of existing 
> > devices which speak SIP and which have H.264-only.
> > 
> > With that said, there are also a large number of devices 
> with built-in 
> > H.264 encoders.
> > 
> > 
> >> IPR-issues aside, does anyone honestly think that we'd be 
> better off 
> >> with a video codec monopoly? I'd much rather see VP8 and H.264 
> >> compete on equal footing. I believe that one of Mozilla's primary 
> >> goals for entering the mobile market was to create competition in 
> >> that space, which is why I hope that they will push for 
> competition in this space as well.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you think "Mozilla" should do other than 
> what it's 
> > doing, which is to support both codecs.
> > 
> > -Ekr
> 
> Ekr,
> 
> Can you provide something that points to this:
> 
> > "Installed base" here also means the very large number of existing 
> > devices which speak SIP and which have H.264-only.
> 
> as a fact?  I'm particularly interested in the "very large 
> number" part more than the H.264-only part.  How many SIP 
> devices are really out there that have any a passing interest 
> or chance at being an interop target for rtcweb?
> 
> The reason I ask is because amongst the most pressing 
> strengths of H.264 as MTI for rtcweb is interop, but interop 
> is not a primary goal of rtcweb.  Introducing the burden of 
> H.264 into the spec for new devices, technologies, and 
> methods should not be a factor if the true relevance is 
> minimal or, in fact, small enough to be considered non-existent.
> 
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>