Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com> Mon, 20 October 2014 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <btdingle@gmail.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 CF3831ACE4F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, 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 yBOnLKgTqaP4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61E6B1ACE1B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mc6so60527lab.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=2BviouBlUZXUwL3wgbLRfxmmf31wo7XiTDjE0HJ45mc=; b=Yizk9kp3xoz752yc6Ge2nf7uaXvlhR62uDd0bdXRx+U7Oe2w7ekK46Kpx5qrjjbsUL 0YWboPN2iT6r3T7ZZz5O1zT4Es+APz1t79SQXAEycQPy74HeM257OJ/4FkxpN89Rz2pW fF7o2QViD1C16OUohRAPNfVhXr4HKMA7owPyvCUYfPk17/hIYCY3DNmK1dXEvVTxa68l B62o5bRDveT5EIwahp9Sxld7+9vCuP90zW2b1hHWeRAbmIx+B/qnlrge8tOcBzkzDfMt 0vzqFG0fy+bRGwY5NXdcvUHP5ZCjsplDq55+UA5VdcI2e+aLDFgtW7oKWgfJJU2utw2M VrsA==
X-Received: by 10.112.85.106 with SMTP id g10mr30292642lbz.38.1413847632671; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.83.136 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW3E8GDw2i4CwBSdc1cpS52bQZ3d-xbdQraMWwGGdMStA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <544117FB.6050706@alvestrand.no> <CAHgZEq6GTk5ei+LLpWPM5povpieompD66VU9F+u7--WJVgapaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com> <54442128.6070009@alvestrand.no> <CAOW+2dt8j2VwmpeQ3qaCNOKNgrGz95Sp_ROq=FO9sNm7M2EX2w@mail.gmail.com> <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD2400622F1@ORSMSX158.amr.corp.intel.com> <CAOJ7v-13gaoqXQOH6KD9fK9C_fKSpoO4HpfNEmVanh0hTRpn9A@mail.gmail.com> <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD2400699DE@fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com> <CAN=GVAvw9heEmKmJw6kHzjUBRkD1OhDkxmXkjKQOgCf6PgOn1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW3E8GDw2i4CwBSdc1cpS52bQZ3d-xbdQraMWwGGdMStA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:26:52 +1100
Message-ID: <CAN=GVAt6=K5JnsFxM7doagTB5gO69X5nERUoNjVn_4+Ubkt7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349882e979090505e30d13
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GezFqn5xhfbTygJ3WH8xssQkcgg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:27:16 -0000

Martin,

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to use 'network scenario' as a
general term to encompass different end-to-end call situations that involve
my WebRTC network and the destination network e.g. mobile, PSTN, VoIP,
existing Video Services etc. (Opposite call directions also apply of
course.)

I am suggesting that there should be MTI's for several major end-to-end
network scenarios as that is something that the IETF can specify. HOW the
small range of MTI's are Implemented is up to Browsers and the Browsers can
be categorised according to their support of the different network
scenarios.

The Browsers are the key to what codecs are supported. Trying to force
people by Specification to implement something they do not want to support
(for whatever reason) is what is causing us this video codec MTI debate to
be unsolvable.

The IETF Specifications should describe what protocols etc are needed for
interoperability. A separate document can describe which options (in this
case codecs) to use in different end-to-end network scenarios. That is, the
'case-specific' MTIs.

Barry Dingle
Fixed - +61(0)3-9725-3937    Mob - +61(0)41-911-7578
Fellow of University of Melbourne, Australia

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 20 October 2014 01:52, Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rather, we should have 2 (or more) Network Scenarios and have Audio+Video
> > MTI's for Each Network Scenario.
>
>
> Why should your network attachment conditions determine who you can talk
> to?
>