IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net> Fri, 10 January 2014 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrosen@jdrosen.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 E57911ADFB3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_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 GXqwpIfwrQbz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:54:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com (ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com [70.39.232.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83FA1ADFA1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:43443) by ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>) id 1W1SEe-0001VG-8U for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:54:17 -0500
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fb1so2570679pad.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:54:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bMZIy0NJJyeC6uUd+hY5WJfhFW79k+twTPROBe89dTo=; b=GvrUFUNAozQcKqlxFdza2i/4dOFTWrork2PpDAyVd85e1Q10BTUZVbCCJ5yJwL7wzo VkgBWmgx6StVkDjtanUk4lvWTuHCXxmb2Ys5Oq3FqXttG1haep/UE145BjBgZHy4r8Yn G54I0gHJfiA294+ZjQDnHFJuXaP1Hgrj6sB3ZYfvCM/xNNeVMalJ5qs42RcRlpoAyOZU CNckUsQXZOKs6DLZGdFlOX3hA+CoW8Y+SK/wcDqEwJ+tzJgTQtcutVmDs8MawxLeKN5o 1BwENd3mJTesM50NzXMQ3XRnQb9e7/A30+T/u8lRyYRxzZZjDrfQXSn1SZD3ep9jlrq0 8xjQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.69.18.234 with SMTP id gp10mr7728286pbd.105.1389322451870; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.14.97 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:54:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:54:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+23+fEb2YTyCgFrqtArQR6Q6hipwV-NYUxkoiANDFwf1-wWtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11364fac38f2ec04ef94d73e"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jdrosen.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: jdrosen+jdrosen.net/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:54:34 -0000

My views:


   1.

   All entities MUST support H.264
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *YES.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:
      2.

   All entities MUST support VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Unlicensable IPR claims; high risk of trolls coming out of the
      wordworks; lack of interoperability with install base of H.264 based
      systems; lack of current broad support for hardware acceleration*
      3.

   All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:* I put this down as acceptable, as opposed to NO, because I
      believe that primary problem here is what the browsers implement. As I am
      not a browser vendor, it would be OK by me if they all decide to
implement
      both - since it means H.264 is there, ensuring interoperability. In other
      words, I dont think rtcweb *compliance* is meaningful outside of the
      browser - only interoperability with webRTC. Thus I view #3 and #4 as
      effectively identical.*
      4.

   Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at
   least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:
      5.

   All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not result in interoperability.*
      6.

   All entities MUST support H.261
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Quality nowhere near acceptable for commercial application.*
      7.

   There is no MTI video codec
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not result in interoperability. *
      8.

   All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
   one of H.264 and VP8: *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Will frequently
      result in H.261 ({Chrome to any other browser},{Chrome to install base})
      and this is not acceptable from a quality perspective. *
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:
      9.

   All entities MUST support Theora: *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not produce interoperability with install base. *
      10.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Will result in H.261 in too many cases and this will not provide
      sufficient quality.
      11.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263} *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will result in H.263 in too many cases and this will not
      provide sufficient quality. *
      12.

   All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
   support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *From a patent perspective is equivalent to implementing both. *
      13.

   All entities MUST support H.263
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Quality not sufficient for commercial use.*
      14.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}: *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not produce interoperability with install base.*
      15.

   All entities MUST support decoding using Theora. *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:
      16.

   All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Quality not sufficient for commercial use.*



On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> This is the email announcing the straw poll across the video codec
> alternatives proposed to the WG. If you haven’t read the “Next Steps in
> Video Codec Selection Process” (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html )then
> please do that before you continue to read.
>
> The straw poll’s purpose is to make it clear to the WG which of the
> alternatives that are favored or disfavored and what objections you have,
> if any, against a particular alternative. The WG chairs will use the
> information from this straw poll to identify an alternative to put as a
> single consensus question to the group. Thus, everyone that has an opinion
> on at least one alternative should answer this poll. Provide your poll
> input by replying to this email to the WG mailing list. The poll will run
> until the end of the 12th of January 2014.
>
> As can be seen below, the poll lists the alternative that have proposed to
> the WG. For each alternative two questions are listed.
>
> The first question is “Are you in favor of this option
> [Yes/No/Acceptable]:”. These three levels allow you to indicate that you:
> Yes= I would be fine with the WG choosing this option. No = I really don’t
> favor this, and it should not be picked. Acceptable = I can live with this
> option but I prefer something else to be picked.
>
> The second question is “Do you have any objections to this option, if so
> please explain it:” If you have any objection at a minimum indicate it with
> a “Yes”.   Please also add a short (1-sentence) summary of each of the
> objections you believe applies.  (If you wish to provide a longer
> explanation, please do so in a separate thread).  If you have no objection,
> leave that question blank.
>
> Please provide input on as many of the alternatives as you like and feel
> comfortable to do. The more inputs, the more well informed decision the WG
> chairs can take when identifying the option to be brought forward for
> consensus. Any alternative that you chose to leave blank, will simply be
> considered as one without any input from you.
>
> WG participants, please do not comment on anyone’s input in this thread!
> If you want to comment, then create a separate thread and change the
> subject line to something else. Otherwise you are making life for the
> chairs very difficult to track the results of this straw poll.
>
> If discussion causes you to update your position, please feel free to send
> an update via email on the straw poll thread prior to the closing date.
>
>
>
>    1.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.264
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       2.
>
>    All entities MUST support VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       3.
>
>    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       4.
>
>    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support
>    at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       5.
>
>    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       6.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.261
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       7.
>
>    There is no MTI video codec
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       8.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
>    one of H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       9.
>
>    All entities MUST support Theora
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       10.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       11.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       12.
>
>    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
>    support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       13.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.263
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       14.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       15.
>
>    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       16.
>
>    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>
>
>
>  H.264 is a reference to the proposal in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>
>
> VP8 is a reference to the proposal in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/>
>
> Theora is a reference to Xiph.org Theora Specification from March 16, 2011
> (http://www.xiph.org/theora/doc/Theora_I_spec.pdf)
>
> H.263 is a reference to profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of ITU-T rec
> H.263 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/)
>
> H.261 is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4587
>
> Motion JPEG is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2435
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> The Chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
jdrosen@jdrosen.net
http://www.jdrosen.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email