IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 11 November 2014 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 13CC61ACDA8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:13:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 OBwP3FQUq-hK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B89B1ACDAA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:13:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w7so8405039qcr.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:13:11 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VnGEbIDSd9PH2aDC4SEB8SyJkQDDvZbx5vR5nB4Cih0=; b=ahnlXIE444UNEujrjaArG2/NfkEM+hvfsfVtqxxXOqBXkTNCcmCItNkJ377zKRlOZB AK4uWbWsclbvW9ZMRAG+MD4PUh3F02cQfQGLo9Nt3AzIINqVXdw6yESWCWy0ZJwhYoQX IHDHolYvccPeFfwQzXZgNp/V+23JWKoRR3AofehWrkKj4n94Al1lumowe4ZVnPdw3KFo JMsoqKmVIheCgFaUdko5CRBiAzZoYxqWiAoSCoIWUvFNPUegr8unpeDVaoMr/0wM7cMR /PGQdWDo1nOzrrwGyGhSil65EMzfov05nGGn6ESZmIh5Y5T5Pv+5fl6D/ftmEoPICAW4 8J+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmFWarNWvToGtnrYfvc7sQrDsQhYTQPZO9Ti1FdoCfRiUJ7NCVpPWXFCNSilgkC1MgUNweA
X-Received: by 10.224.53.132 with SMTP id m4mr6825391qag.85.1415740391342; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:13:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.49.100 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:12:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54627964.7040709@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> <1D5CFB04-2CCB-424C-A364-1CAA05E84D12@apple.com> <20141111011054.GR8092@hex.shelbyville.oz> <E18B79D1-D8C8-4A17-A2F0-93BDAAFED698@apple.com> <BE15C090-239F-45BC-8747-501AC86653B2@gmail.com> <5461A019.6030108@alvestrand.no> <1A6093A8-A7E9-4760-B790-CC767CAA2116@gmail.com> <546265E3.7060300@alvestrand.no> <546267B9.8020605@andyet.net> <4E528337-ED7A-41ED-B196-A4CF6C4D84DF@phonefromhere.com> <54627964.7040709@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:12:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfnZ_TEQp7-fLmS9hT7HZ11-ZW0LEc_tS--8Qna4Kb9xcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/DIyeCEd6XzjTVH4xPyYWUWnkHpI
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:13:14 -0000

2014-11-11 22:02 GMT+01:00 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>:
> Same here. I would also prefer replacing "both" with "either" in the device
> rule. What is the practical benefit of forcing both codecs on non-browsers?
> If you proceed this way, won't most applications accept being declared
> non-compliant instead of investing the extra work/cost of implementing both
> codecs?

Is just that? Without the royalty/patents/licensing stuff being clear
in both H264 and VP8, the current agreement means that someone
building a new browser will be mandated to include two
non-open-royalty-free codecs in order to be "compliant" with a ***W3C
specification***. This is insane IMHO, even more given that nobody
here can claim whether no legal actions could be made in the future
against the author of this such a new browser.

And of course, by "including both codecs" I don't mean "including the
Cisco binary+wrapper".


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status