Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

["cb.list6" <[e-mail]>]

Why no SHOULD implement vp8 and h248? SHOULD means you will do it unless
you have a real good reason.

MUST is too hard for this WG.  Many implementations have a really good
reason to not do vp8 OR h248.

Saying that all webrtc MUST do one or the other or both is disingenuous.

SHOULD for both is as good as we are going to get with this complicated IPR
environment.  Using MUST is simply not going to work and we have 10,000 on
this mailer to back that up.

Cameron
On Nov 13, 2013 12:24 PM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
>
> As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection of the
> MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we have on
> the table:
>
>  1. All entities MUST support H.264
>  2. All entities MUST support VP8
>  3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>  4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>  5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>  6. All entities MUST support H.261
>  7. There is no MTI video codec
>
> If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
> above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
> that point, the chairs will be listing all the received alternatives and
> proposing a process to select one among them.
>
> Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not need to
> write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
> document regarding video codecs.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
> Responsible AD for this WG
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>