Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

cowwoc <> Fri, 15 November 2013 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F2411E81B3 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.538
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7LZfbefBr42z for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485CE11E8209 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:43:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id aq17so5109665iec.9 for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=6eh8T7wlmeVcKfClCpvvmThVdHsavOmhiGjZnIFviqM=; b=eCEscZMuWfo39yiBqxe21VKyuGm8FQUmn/oHWIXZTxFEJc4b+froauHoA9KAX3fwnF Yfeb5y5N/AjbFan4hG+OxIP9F3urk26BrVmbX4qlpLdZuWZxrBrJvA0X6K9znjDoie5l XNrSSnY7sHv3LYwwWg8URydTAnQdoYrAWL69t1tYGtOwQAQMkCFYiptunfPqS9uNGEp4 VGtwX4wJ99Mwn8Gxt+MBnRJ6+wTMBs16yIQttEWQRKOlDGrzAYxVUEqHuMpbQjn5beYU wtMeTf1xv8av2wWIaHZhIsZ4F43gkB46D2x2fJcvUKgkU1y9E8eAnjtzQoNkcOsph4x6 kT/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn7TR5t29bGlwN/7YKy6Bmj1MplU/LFh8b1EK/Lrmb4TFB3hcmNrpyYmGKNsRNMXrs65dXU
X-Received: by with SMTP id f4mr4932655igh.11.1384530191574; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id cl4sm3855255igc.1.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:42:52 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030902020207040906060100"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:44:53 -0000


In light of Harald and your responses, I'm in favor of two separate 
options for H.261 and Theora respectively. If we find a narrow those 
options down to one within the next two weeks, great, but otherwise I'd 
list them as separate options.

Also, how would the "voting" work exactly? I was imagining the following 

  * Each person is given the 10 or so options we'll end up with in 2 weeks.
  * The person throws out all options they don't consider acceptable
    under any circumstances
  * They sort the remaining options in order of preference
  * We tabulate the results across everyone, assigning a decreasing
    number of points to the options as the priority decreases (meaning,
    1st choice gets the most points, 2nd choice less, and so on)
  * We publish the results, how many "points" each option had and if
    there is a huge margin for the top one, it wins.


On 15/11/2013 9:22 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> On 2013-11-15 14:51, cowwoc wrote:
>> +1 with the caveat that I think option 6 should simply state:
>> 6. All entities MUST support a specific IPR-expired codec (to be decided
>> at a later meeting) such as H.261 or Theora.
>> The goal remains the same. I don't think people voting for this option
>> need to know up-front what the specific codec would be so long as we
>> explain that we'll try to pick the best codec possible. Correct me if
>> I'm wrong :)
> I would believe there are a lot of people in the WG that consider the
> IPR risks between Theora and H.261 significantly different. I realize
> that list each alternative code will result in a significantly longer
> list, but at the same time, I don't see how the above MUST statement
> allows the WG to conclude on video codec selection. If we would agree on
> the above, we would spend another year discussing our IPR beliefs around
> various codecs. From that perspective I do think there is better to have
> the individuals in the WG form their own opinions regarding an explicit
> proposal.
> At the same time, I would recommend that the people who believe in the
> above option, coming to an agreement now, before the process starts, on
> which codec alternative they want to support. This is after all also a
> question of how to best trade IPR risk vs capability and quality per
> bit. Thus improving that options chance.
> Cheers
> Magnus Westerlund
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------