Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

David Singer <singer@apple.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <singer@apple.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 5F4E61AE087 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HJC6mXtqzsCd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EA81AE01A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Received: from relay3.apple.com ([17.128.113.83]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MWO008BVKX0UIH0@mail-out.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:39 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11807153-b7f246d000005e2f-0a-528fb822f0a4
Received: from spicerack.apple.com (spicerack.apple.com [17.128.115.40]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay3.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C5.24.24111.228BF825; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from singda.apple.com (singda.apple.com [17.197.32.11]) by spicerack.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0MWO00JRYKYQ2N30@spicerack.apple.com> for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:38 -0800 (PST)
From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <CAOJ7v-2zCZk4cMh1MbpXGHCELJMJppLVEX9CwPG3VNtDfDv4qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:01:37 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <02B96CE8-A6D9-4288-B052-FB54B07447FB@apple.com>
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7ED@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <E62E1CAF-546D-4A0E-9339-D03D6C0BC1AE@apple.com> <528EBAB0.2010906@librevideo.org> <D125BF97-73BE-4591-8C70-30C03974CC78@apple.com> <528EBD4C.8070504@librevideo.org> <CAOJ7v-2zCZk4cMh1MbpXGHCELJMJppLVEX9CwPG3VNtDfDv4qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FCsoau0oz/IYOJ7E4u1/9rZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV8bL/LHPBcc6KE7s0GhivsncxcnJICJhIdN/rYYGwxSQu3FvP 1sXIxSEkMJlJYveFF4wQzmomiffPdzJ3MXJwMAvoSdy/qAXSwAtk3mq+zwxiCwuYSXy43wE2 lE1AVeLBnGOMIDanQLDE8geLwGwWoPi87+/B6pkFXCSWtX5ih7C1JZ68u8AKMdNGYt6+n0wg tpDAFSaJhZPtQGwRATWJh7N2sUIcKiux+/l35gmMArMQLpqF5KJZSKYuYGRexShQlJqTWGms l1hQkJOql5yfu4kRHHSFwTsY/yyzOsQowMGoxMO7w7IvSIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr+WC/iAh 3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivDPmA6UE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2Mmo+SSzZXl8Vc SDht9OTWtpfswkx9Lvf2yBTH23IfsH3lUJx34JVlbVXYmafNs+75/dS5LKv4cvfmxLuZGybL 6jxZwOD08EufIVff4RIrnkeHP4SdCT633nVn2eGn/+/6bUoVab5/zFVX4995gfi0TWVh752O 2pz+siz65Um9Z6Gu7Xw/L29dqcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAKGwN9E2AgAA
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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, 22 Nov 2013 20:01:47 -0000

On Nov 21, 2013, at 18:18 , Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:

> Stefan Wenger posted a fairly detailed analysis of the H.263 situation, which I think also applies to MPEG-2.

I’m not sure I’d call that a detailed analysis;  a detailed analysis would include, for example, opening up the 31/34 patent statements for each codec, identifying the patents, and seeing whether they had yet expired.  Stephan gave an ‘informed opinion’ that, for him, the increased performance was balanced by increased risk:

On Nov 18, 2013, at 8:35 , Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>; wrote:

> So is it worth evaluating H.263 further?  IMO, probably not.  It¹s
> doubtless technically better than H.261, but the risk is inproportionally
> higher.  And the whole idea of this substandard baseline codec has been to
> be essentially without risk.

but given the prevalence of the use of H.263 in existing systems and standards, I am not at all convinced we should give up on it so quickly.

I am not knocking his opinion, you understand, just questioning whether we should discard H.263 based on just this one opinion.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.