Re: [rtcweb] on Svein Yngvar Willassen 's choices was- Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in> Sat, 11 January 2014 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <svein@comoyo.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 985431AE142 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2g9R518RXOco for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FCE1AE067 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ar20so2283607iec.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:21 -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=lZ3DfivatyXn9GhUhf7MHtPoWhLq16vEgYxz6tGE6KU=; b=ROqAUjw/bn7+0tDbCI87WnAaSKH51ROT8j2pzqeAXO7haBbKbHiUPLNy8EePbT0fHP vlwveDQOW5OB4rIQ3C6V4tFzDgftwbLWpNa3voEHMqVhJPWRx+ImgFipNvF2OyiQcS2B c+XjeogIckm9snesFCcoSHpC65fkLKYMoyX32E7eNAUtjV2Op0H4hArfIlmchTZQJzuc tpBs8+K+/9/4mDB96A0boHDbl7t/ECr7L5TsqDz3UkzK1DQDNOlMoTEHxOcceh6EiKMF xOpubz8f9lb+sVGzmxvFmbw0+7xPmaAwHl5QXLHDyFHarJsR5jVDEJtU75GHKGI+fgkS 8BsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgqxgFkvQ+TzrjLYvQ/qjnC6VSlVDuqra3zulEpf5DE5FFdqLN6aZz3aH0XifJaA4lsBT5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.122.38 with SMTP id lp6mr10628753igb.30.1389465861577; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.103.9 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:44:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AC52512D-2823-48A8-A8E9-1B5DFF7B4C3A@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <52D0325E.5080305@tele.no> <CAJcPMn=rhL1cF1pfX=JdVzLOaAsXRxEEw5VbZZeOx9y5VOhsUQ@mail.gmail.com> <AC52512D-2823-48A8-A8E9-1B5DFF7B4C3A@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:44:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJcPMnnbnA+xpddBjykBE-T17EdQ=8waSFYq-Bg8biq78Mz2cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e015383601b7b6804efb63bf2"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org >> rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] on Svein Yngvar Willassen 's choices was- Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:44:33 -0000

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:

>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:51, Svein Yngvar Willassen <svein@appear.in> wrote:
>
> >
> >       • Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
> support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >               • Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
> >               • Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> summarize them:  Not always having a common codec requires transcoding.
> This option will create a barrier for extending web based services to
> mobile devices.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how you see transcoding happening.
> The only occurrence I can see is where one non-browser app e.g. 'facebook
> for ios' implements only h264 and a different
> non-browser app e.g. 'linkedin for android' implements only VP8 AND users
> of these two apps choose to attempt to call each other.
>
> I'd humbly suggest that the codec transcoding would be the least of their
> problems, it is unlikely that 2 single purpose apps
> will be expected to interop. It isn't even clear that it is desirable.
> That's kinda the point of the 'browser' distinction - it isn't about
> laptop vs mobile it is
> multi purpose vs single purpose. or Generic vs Dedicated.
>

Is all forms of browsing on all kinds of devices included in the term
"Browsers", including WebViews embedded in other applications?

However, I'm not sure I would change my position should the answer to the
above questions be yes. There may be other entities that are not browsers
that should be interoperable with each other. Two different native video
conferencing solutions could for example claim to be WebRTC compliant
without being interoperable with each other.

--
Svein Willassen, ph.d.
https://appear.in