Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 7A67E21E8087 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:56:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.723, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 95h8pJnX-IcY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8369121E814A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:56:10 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-04-5284902792c0
Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E6.C1.03802.72094825; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:56:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:56:06 +0100
Message-ID: <52849076.4020605@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:57:26 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <CEA93953.AA11A%stewe@stewe.org> <CA+23+fHWsaz3mbTfmw+so_9Mj5BXKAEkQCvNfr5bo+0G9s80mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fHWsaz3mbTfmw+so_9Mj5BXKAEkQCvNfr5bo+0G9s80mw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra76hJYgg+eTZC3W/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqxl8gUblSpu7VnK1MC4SKqLkZNDQsBE4snvi4wQtpjEhXvr 2boYuTiEBA4xSlw7vQnKWc4oce/rXSaQKl4BbYm/O0+xgdgsAqoSjzpXsoLYbAIWEjd/NILF RQWCJc6/WswOUS8ocXLmExYQW0RAVOL142lA9RwcwgKWEheOm0DMn8go8e3je7ArOAUCJRa8 6QarkRAQl+hpDAIJMwvoSUy52sIIYctLNG+dzQxiCwGd09DUwTqBUXAWkm2zkLTMQtKygJF5 FSN7bmJmTnq50SZGYPAd3PJbdQfjnXMihxilOViUxHk/vHUOEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUkt PsTIxMEp1cAo7LvCJfdUtJfJF/OirS9ZZ3K/+x7PEGPvrnPNungby9RbhhwJ/2c5vV/EfND4 sNPNzKwPZgY39/tceSYSquzd7RZ5yP128sYNHR/eWvzoybXR6zRnTHA+s0fg6Q2rcy9mKv39 dkq0SXNusdOtAJseyXT7OXdl5PrFu2X4+PnK5KKVKm+4T1diKc5INNRiLipOBABorLQ1DAIA AA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:56:17 -0000

Hi,

If no one is protesting I would suggest that we update four to say:

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

This makes this alternative clearer I believe.

Cheers

Magnus


On 2013-11-14 03:26, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Regarding number 4, here is how I think of it:
> 
> If browsers implement both, it means that an application provider
> wishing to offer a service (take Hangouts or Skype as examples), can
> pick the one they like, implement just that in their native apps
> (mobile, desktop, etc.) where the app provider has control over the full
> stack, and still work with clients of that service which run in the
> browser, where the app provider does not have control over the full
> stack as the real-time media stack is provided by the browser and not
> the web app. 
> 
> The benefit of this approach is that it enables interoperability between
> clients on different platforms for the same provider.
> 
> The drawback is, for inter-service federation (which requires much more
> than just codecs to be aligned), you might run into a case where a user
> using a mobile app from provider 1 (say, Skype) calls a user using a
> mobile app from provider 2 (say, Hangouts), and then since each chose a
> different video codec, there is no common codec. Of course that assumes
> the two providers in question are willing to even federate in the first
> place. 
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org
> <mailto:stewe@stewe.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Gonzalo,
>     Re your point 5.: ³either or² is often understood as an exclusive or.  I
>     don¹t think anyone proposed that.  A better way to express 5. would be
>     ³All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8².
>     Stephan
> 
>     On 11.13.2013, 12:23 , "Gonzalo Camarillo"
>     <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
>     <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> 
>     >Folks,
>     >
>     >I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
>     >
>     >As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection
>     of the
>     >MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we have on
>     >the table:
>     >
>     > 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>     > 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>     > 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>     > 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>     > 5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>     > 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>     > 7. There is no MTI video codec
>     >
>     >If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
>     >above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
>     >that point, the chairs will be listing all the received
>     alternatives and
>     >proposing a process to select one among them.
>     >
>     >Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not need to
>     >write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
>     >document regarding video codecs.
>     >
>     >Thanks,
>     >
>     >Gonzalo
>     >Responsible AD for this WG
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >rtcweb mailing list
>     >rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
> jdrosen@jdrosen.net <mailto:jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
> http://www.jdrosen.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------