IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 06 November 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.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 ED4F21A6EE2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Pt_owLQVQXPa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f178.google.com (mail-qc0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C7801A1B61 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id b13so1578565qcw.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jIT+gjjPb4Zultd3PdPlUcZawFffs8zx+a5HIfkc8Xc=; b=VuI5iAP0eTP4JKbNWyTl6NmqD0bIglnoYtxtpmRKD1TiyWUAL+mcQOIC1TqHPrDhib IMWpF1qrpQCLWwIsxRRWhHoBSJm5UiYQpGiiPHTExSsSMgMSNk9thGSEIYEidtbyAR3C uvwDChS0ZCaCmTF+D17yfstGT0rKPDeqbjQRLi67DUxT7BpAVcldKgXKQmtq1PsCi+dA mWMUIwhCQr+4rlzQQiVfrg2ArDEPVVdcZy2xAGivkjq9b+20TiBnjgVbjW5qVqdo7VgD nHGcEhRIIhQilHBQXhgMIC9q2XJ0VpG+UvfqdKXDGtO329rws7AA6U/HglVxezPF8665 ezww==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbfJiP7qmF/6Z86i/JlHQRu5dsfmkCG1jgv9DSO1Wfr5F5eH6OtApoubpY/J+ogLwyDWpf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.84.71 with SMTP id k65mr9836931qgd.76.1415304341749; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.69.200 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.69.200 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:05:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D0812C0A.3DDD9%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <98200BCB-ABC9-4BE0-B11D-B7AEC9F8B2A4@ieca.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D4E50D8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <E78E8017-A08F-4061-B2BA-FB3900B1C681@phonefromhere.com> <CAGTXFp-9AtQakpLt+O_eNRNr71uyh26igLb-_56LDUTQ+g5iJg@mail.gmail.com> <545A6281.4050601@gmail.com> <EC89515C-4FD9-4C08-A80A-42B36004A516@phonefromhere.com> <545A7E0B.4070505@gmail.com> <C17546AB-1419-49C2-A634-49296C122347@phonefromhere.com> <CABcZeBOWyy3hagGpjMzmbPJjCaBdUjUUs5zat-t7h75Xa+Fzkg@mail.gmail.com> <20141106182937.GH8092@hex.shelbyville.oz> <D0812C0A.3DDD9%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:05:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfnThj=8Lv0Z_bQ8eu3jzkkA3KO_Djxigf70g5a29dBGoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c11bf48a350b05073638af"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GkXc6Fy6s7D5D5xYEdaG3FbOMe0
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The MTI Codec Questions (what to ask and how to ask them)
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:05:47 -0000

So the world WebRTC ecosystem will depend on Cisco. This is something
unnaceptable and I hope the W3C won't make MTI a video codec under those
circumstances.
On 6 Nov 2014 20:11, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> wrote:

> We are also working with Red Hat on a potential Gstreamer plugin.
> We would be happy to work with Debian or anyone else on other wrappers
> for projects that want to download some wrapper format beyond the raw
> library.
>
> It would be ideal to have a single binary (per platform) that works for
> all applications, without many different wrappers. That was the goal of
> the raw library, but apparently this is not sufficient for most projects.
> Until we reach an acceptable common wrapper (with verifiable builds),
> we¹re happy to have folks contribute their desired wrapper for hosting.
> Mozilla contributed the Firefox Gecko Media Plugin (GMP) wrapper. They
> were first to contribute, so they were hosted first, not due to any
> special privilege.
>
> Mo
>
> On 11/6/14, 1:29 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:14:27PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, the worst aspect of any adoption of H264 is that it makes it
> > > significantly more difficult to
> > > produce a custom ¹secure¹ build of firefox that has been independently
> > > reviewed for special use-cases
> > > (press, humanitarian workers etc).
> >
> > Why is this true? We currently build OpenH264 and then send the binary to
> > Cisco but keep a hash for comparison. Why is it more difficult to review
> > this?
> Is Cisco offering to ship such binaries for anyone who wants to build
> them, or is this a special privilege they offered to you to win your
> support for their scheme?
>   Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email