Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

H.264 for legacy interop, VP8 for the use cases where the MPEG LA's
licensing conditions might get into the way of a novel service.. sounds
like a good compromise. Of course this moves the complexity from the
network (video transcoding gateways) into the browser. As transcoding
gateways don't scale well, I'd prefer the browser support for both codecs.

Wolfgang Beck

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com>wrote:

>  Any implementation can refuse to implement any MTI, whether it is 1 or
> 2. I see more good than harm by mandating both. We mandated Opus and G.711,
> right? Did anyone complain that 2 MTIs would increase the chance of
> negotiation failure? Forcing a binary MTI decision suggests an intent to
> let one live and kill the other. Live and let live...
>
>  Mo
>
>
>   On 11/5/13, 11:33 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    Both can't be made mandatory, because some parties would refuse to
> implement VP8 or H.264. This will cause negotiation failure anyway.
>  What about a 3?
> 3. If you support a codec with expired IPR(such as H.261) as the mandatory
> to implement codec or are
> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>
>  None should only be an option if 1/2/3 can't be satisfied. Actually None
> shouldn't even be an option, because it won't solve negotiation failure.
>
>
> On 5 November 2013 16:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that making both VP8 and H264 MTI might be a good option
>> for WebRTC in terms of maximizing interoperability and would be a better
>> decision coming out of this IETF meeting than no decision at all.
>>
>> Can we have some clarification as to whether any consensus call during
>> this week's meeting will include this option?
>>
>> Previously it was stated that the questions to be asked would be:
>>
>> 1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>> 2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>>
>> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>