IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 6499F1AE05F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:30:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 fOC8LwSBL3ur for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB1D1AE202 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (sccc-66-78-236-243.smartcity.com [66.78.236.243]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rALHU9OA070153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:30:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <528E431D.6030703@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:30:05 -0800
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com> <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl> <528C79AD.10608@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl> <528D0355.3090603@googlemail.com> <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 66.78.236.243 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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, 21 Nov 2013 17:30:21 -0000

On 11/20/13 11:42, David Singer wrote:
> So, would “MUST implement at least two of (H.264, VP8, H.263)” work?

I have to give you a lot of credit for coming up with a "pick two of 
three" formulation. That's a clever way to guarantee overlapping codecs 
between any two pairwise implementations. I'm still not sure it's the 
right direction for *this* decision, but it sure is an interesting 
thought exercise.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email