Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 26 November 2013 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 734E21AC4A7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 FnNHcp-up1Yt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163391AC441 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x13so8420506ief.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L02+F5x2XAZI7jvPIyqcHYyV43SF2e2EKScInmSZLWU=; b=JP/MXHKtq4AlTnNno7VcS86f+RgeRucyPcfnJhU/u+vA0fMADbVl3YGkzFYs92OsOG FxZhLjoQR4iHO8BzxOSu/nLdl7VcW7JnXJMgpfYm4h3ZTEwtcTzDf0fipR5wgVz3FvaZ ovBVumw0YuYc0N8ah7o0YtpQM6Ii5Ca1J/GXc2Lb9FGzVyeqtkFKsqENYHczc9NW31vg iBW5fDnseYgu+H+qrDlTjuqUmMWPMjyoeH7DSuKIbIYmBqwImDOSSE2avznS5k0WCB/u Vp+HeJA+EqXX/yoAAcMBWrsxzbQOvqgxxFjhCJMnaZC2zaVZwlV7A7MLlWZHshu2PDJB pf5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAsAmKKAHwTpufSGAtzOZOo4WzDWhOq5BNiQWleX4qWW42vBfcQT6QNzHI2R8K3dipm4S5
X-Received: by 10.50.17.100 with SMTP id n4mr16086819igd.11.1385453620850; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ri5sm30520911igc.1.2013.11.26.00.13.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52945813.2050309@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 03:13:07 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <52935C89.5040408@ericsson.com> <CAGgHUiQnkQKkc-ptMu6DtfUYJY6N9i7PUaeAqKxp96nB2MQBGA@mail.gmail.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A13302B@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE0397680A16A5@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE0397680A16A5@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?
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, 26 Nov 2013 08:13:42 -0000

On 25/11/2013 9:16 PM, Chenxin (Xin) wrote:
> [Xin]I forget who proposed 10 first, but there are differences between 
> new 10 and origin 10. In origin 10, H.261 has little chance be 
> implemented. I don't think it is possible that one browser do not 
> implement both H.264 and vp8, but implement H.261. even it is 
> possible, only implement H.261 will not be helpful for interoperation. 
> In alternatives 10, H.261 has much more possible be used, which is 
> designed for interoperation purpose. So I agree to change alternatives 
> 10. to 10. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261}

You're missing the point of MTI. If H.261 is MTI, nothing prevents you 
from supporting VP8 and H.264 anyway. It is possible for mobile 
applications that interact with web clients to only need 
lower-resolution videos (think: accessibility applications). It is quite 
reasonable for them to only implement H.261 and no one will be harmed 
because specialized applications are not meant to act as generic web 
browsers.

Gili