IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 28 January 2014 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 D1F561A02E8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:20:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, 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 NFgt1zbqmWIj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595231A0240 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [71.84.176.17]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BC354032A; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:20:23 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <52E7D92B.8000604@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:22:03 -0800
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <BFDBDCA9-937E-4B90-97B1-A23EEB65CF9A@iii.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs and the staw poll
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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:20:29 -0000

On 1/27/14, 9:13 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> After reviewing the poll results found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/pdfWd2PIhOY9y.pdf
> the chairs concludes that the working group still believes that an
> MTI is required for the WebRTC ecology to develop.

IMHO the state of video codec development needs to evolve before the WG 
can make a decision regarding an MTI video codec.

> If anyone has concerns about tabling this discussion until September
> 29, 2014 please let us know by February 4.

I have concerns that September 2014 is too soon.

It was relatively easy for the WG to choose two MTI audio codecs because 
Opus was a clear winner among modern codecs (and because we had an 
obvious fallback). We have no such codec in the video space. My 
suggestion is to wait until we have such a codec (and, in parallel 
within some other WG or initiative, push hard to make that happen), 
rather than continue the endless and fruitless wrangling over the 
current options.

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email