Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

Harald Alvestrand <> Tue, 13 December 2011 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6859821F8A7A for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u4aD++klMq+Z for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F1A21F8753 for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3B739E18C; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:26:16 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sO7VJlqQNQyM; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:26:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8352339E10E; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:26:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:26:12 -0800
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rob Glidden <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090808080307030407020700"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:26:18 -0000

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.

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.