Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Mohammed Raad <> Tue, 05 November 2013 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAFE11E80E3 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:31:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.31
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8O7vycE3IYm for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:31:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FD711E8103 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ex4so3974000wid.5 for <>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Uc8K6MZ+debrHMFFyN1QVZ9GZP7fgHO6c2ZcoNhf3Gk=; b=UXokOgTDr+zq98YK8zcOHEAN2lYHI4NQ21XHPjRJBZAtZeNi+JicbXuCJazRZxqD/h PTVpKZgmvsseIgCRtI7Y7BSRqRiO8RQ/dAts3os1OI70A+GSuSpn1bfhl4OiJT4XfyjA oQ/mrbnV0LChqpTSF4owdLQR+pQkCnvPecLf9G7QFlXLO1eP/7uzK5dBrDoVWEcW4xXS zsYetXIsvhe5Gp9VqC5yeX1p1TYDRGSATQaYXly6vwJ+Cn/NNInLFaltjZw7q2c5/Xex jApA7NzgDEHiOQIwIXI+KPcTDrXfvAxE24zgFf4ZXP8G6wH/KgrQ0WLc+oiFD9pitJdo g83Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkH1+iY7VvR6aBhuLfVxypYKWTymTpONBur3tAhuOUrKzgRK2t8ApZ9cW0vwE973Fe4hKA2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id m4mr379672wiw.59.1383687101058; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:31:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:31:40 +1100
Message-ID: <>
From: Mohammed Raad <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7f0623ab9404ea74c22c
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:31:51 -0000


Given the lack of agreement on a single MTI, for business reasons
primarily, and given that the debate is really focused on two candidates, I
suggest that a transcoding function between these two codecs be defined at
the service provider level.

I suggest that the transcoding function only include the VP8 and AVC CBP to
make the development and use of this part of the service feasible.

Having such a function would allow different organizations to make their
own decision about what works for them. I sense that different experts have
become entrenched in their respective positions with very little freedom to
make a change, for multiple reasons. I think it should be clear that having
transcoding at the service level would be a reasonable compromise. Note
that no end device would be required to perform the transcoding, this would
be done at the service provider level.

On Nov 6, 2013 5:07 AM, "cowwoc" <> wrote:

> Cullen,
>     In light of the fact that vendors are highly polarized on this topic,
> I'd like to suggest the following voting order:
> 1. Should *both* H.264 and VP8 be MTI?
> If there is a consensus for yes, stop here.
> 2a. Should *only* H.264 be MTI? or,
> 2b. Should *only* VP8 be MTI?
> If there is a consensus for either one, stop here.
> 3a. Should *only* H.261 be MTI? or,
> 3b. Should no codec be MTI? (this implies transcoding)
>     Given the final choice (H.261 or no MTI) I suspect many vendors would
> choose H.261 and upgrade to H.264/VP8 at runtime. No one really wants to go
> back to the days of transcoding.
> Gili
> On 05/11/2013 12:44 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>> Right now there is no proposal on the table for the MTI to be both VP8
>> and H.264 and the deadline was back in October so it's not a topic the
>> chairs feel ready to discuss in the thursday meeting.
>> I will note that in the past when this idea was discussed, the people who
>> were concerned about IPR for either codec pointed out that this could only
>> increased, not decreased, the IPR concerns.
>> The chairs are more concerned about neither choice being acceptable. If
>> we found out that both are acceptable, that will be a good situation and we
>> will find a reasonable way to proceed from there that is acceptable to the
>> WG. Alternative process is the last resort. From a chair point of view, it
>> really better if people actually honestly answer the question in a
>> consensus call instead gaming the system.
>> Cullen - Just one of the chairs and I hope my co-chairs add more but they
>> are both in meetings right now
>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>
>>   wrote:
>>  This is an important point the chairs must clarify. If there is strong
>>> support for both questions, will the chair interpret that as support for
>>> 2
>>> MTIs, or declare no consensus, forcing us into alternative processes? I
>>> support both as MTI. But if raising my hand twice increases the
>>> likelihood
>>> of an alternative process, I will only support one (despite objecting to
>>> being forced to support only one).
>>> Mo
>>> On 11/5/13, 9:46 AM, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
>>> On 5 November 2013 06:18, Hutton, Andrew <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?
>>> If I were to pretend that I am a process wonk, I might say something
>>> like: if the objections to both questions are weak AND if the
>>> objectors are unable to find reasons that pass muster.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list