IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 17 September 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D57911E8140 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwL8OABjKhZK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2461511E8138 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 47BE4C94C2; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:53:26 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Message-ID: <20130917195326.GH59497@verdi>
References: <CA+9kkMAvdtq_gufKmDNCNCL+kKcxyi0MGUoVHetd9_DzbEdEnA@mail.gmail.com> <5238A564.2070601@bbs.darktech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5238A564.2070601@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:53:34 -0000

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
> 
> Seeing as this discussion stems from licensing concerns, I like to 
> propose the following alternative:
> 
> 1. Mandate a video codec whose IPR has expired. I agree that video
>    quality will degrade, which brings me to the next point.

   This is what I support. It won't be that long before whatever we
mandate will be obsolete anyway...

   But the chairs have determined we shall do one more round of duking
it out between H.264 and VP8. To get any other codec considered this
round, you must write a draft proposing it and stating its benefits.

   I do not choose to do so.

   Perhaps we _will_ choose one of these front-runners...

   Regardless, folks seem determined to argue the technical benefits
of these front-runners; and a number of us hold pretty strong opinions
of which of these is "better". I don't wish to complicate that
argument.

   YMMV, of course...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email