Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <creslin@digium.com>
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 703D11AE395 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 f8TIe6WFsbRC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2242F1AE2DA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so304010lbi.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xClQiA8AZ7i4w0nryfAbR4u8KTAh8DNcnVeOrxVHm/k=; b=ZYrq2BiQq0x4bX0UlYM5dzHoeeZBsxH7s/rRIzLI3xyfzHZ5V0uWumAHnS+x8YKsfU Ze/Q1vB9bsGMtm4ctlNPLD8NoDs7BWpd3CUmBkyZt8/V1IYUajlzB/r4Z1EtmgqZmLAs YB/8KIseyiT3l6hysas4aeL5YV5pM3QvmSUL8SHlw6dgAIqi/bHou8EVtyAS1h+Lyyfc oDrdrtMSOYLsUHidmtKfgVQ/FioF+1qlD3yPmOf75VfFWocHhZYAphJFI408xVFf6Pmh 7KNVpUgFis2nshPn6mVDqhePEv49t9xca6kBIozAIYarwQfa1U1y1lGsVRdRou9bG9f+ AQfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvUzr03rh63k/oLp3/ZyOUY5KawAmU82BSWjhxRmdX9/x08Z8rR+3yIDHfocQXShJwhlhc
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.140.193 with SMTP id ri1mr6707277lab.18.1385071447602; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.132.102 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:04:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2CA8952C-9AD0-49F0-A8E9-160099D09DC9@nokia.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <2CA8952C-9AD0-49F0-A8E9-160099D09DC9@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:04:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHZ_z=y+T6s0ifeRW+JregdyUs7mfp4Lzc+3gmkWNuNGDPf+zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com>
To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:04:17 -0000

I also agree with Ron's suggestion....

Implement 2 of 3 seems to be the best way to absolutely preserve interop.

Matthew Fredrickson

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM,  <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>; wrote:
> Would the implement any two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261} option solve your
> problem?
>
> +1 for Ron's reasoning.
>
> Markus
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 23:15, "ext Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>> <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
>> > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>>
>> More than one person has already.
>>
>> And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>> spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>> crappy.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>