Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 12/13/2011 12:10 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:
> Cary:
>
> I have not seen a specific follow up text, but video codec 
> requirements section appears overtaken by events and should be changed.
Rob,

I think that's a very optimistic spin on events.
>
> Here is proposed text that will hopefully reflect consensus spirit:
>
> ...
> 3.2. Video Codec Requirements
> If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile on a 
> royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then the 
> REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline. If this does not happen 
> by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8 [I-D.webm].
>
> The REQUIRED video codec will be a royalty-free codec which has been 
> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other 
> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of 
> its royalty-free status.

If you mean that the required video codec should be the output of the 
ISO MPEG IVC or WebVC efforts, remember that:

1) Neither of these efforts will be available until 2013 - IF everything 
goes according to plan. It is entirely possible that neither of these 
efforts will deliver an outcome.
2) Neither of these efforts has any guaranteed outcome in terms of 
resulting video quality.

So I'm afraid I have to be counted as "not part of the consensus" for 
the text you suggested.

I still hope that we'll sooner or later make a positive statement about 
what we actually need in a baseline video codec in terms of quality, 
industry support, stability of specification or royalty-free status; so 
far, all attempts to start debating what we actually require have died 
without even a whimper.

                          Harald