Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296F521E80F8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:24:02 -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=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMIkCYpCQIUe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037E321E80F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id db12so2794510veb.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:24:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QAEMSaT+kT2MohC9tlRJuzs0VLMECmN9ybq3ugCP7Gw=; b=Q3VUrWC5dtyiApzhfOnl8x4FmDRAht+eKIolQ8wY9gziGBxoqV+s6x6km0thBknW8G XcJXQxTdLloDZsCjYUraVmBosWt420KJKHqrkeTAQrNlpvda4Yfbn3trtvqVMCvb2fKx e+CAqFY9FsapX3sxsaNChiVHUoMUEgMID6EPUwJx9Rx5n19T52swL2JKboAccjgwlH7k PDhlNAB17+b9PTeAT0xJ6ngSixtMnVzW0K7mnnQFkMz+sV31uvAAjUhzsHB3UK0bPKDn 97xSOcVt8GfgU98v4E3Wc1Jby4szNwG7rOBJ4lrL23M7QeWu41avs8Q/A/FQb/A7eAfb 6aTg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.144.168 with SMTP id sn8mr728884veb.33.1383672238971; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:23:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.45.169 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:23:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <CAGgHUiS326saNJ7-0RmVQXYaJBW6Qmo=r9-oYmGiUzP-sDTcXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:23:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAJUQMjsO_Rj50Umtyhd09tpWYMc2dGi2tFPdbL9wD4Phn2+=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
To: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5da93b4a209c04ea714c1d
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 05 Nov 2013 17:24:02 -0000

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;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
>
>