IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

bryandonnovan@gmail.com Tue, 10 December 2013 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <bryandonnovan@gmail.com>
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 773D31A1F78 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 hSAGRgGMMyWj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x231.google.com (mail-ve0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEDA1AE077 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id db12so5136040veb.36 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=oT+2VZh9fLXVYEsVK5W5fzp7SWOG3cT/syjxxrAQ6AQ=; b=WYDUCI/QGqKxDvIc5W3ejdek5lWOYJiRiQdTn6/15/aMqt/RASlTXpUAo6SVBwA3hd 7WmsucTG04tqjiJVH7ZbF1fJiq0aJ7nuu/wnHtMBqJ1g6RmfYzn4ozrzMFXTrATqWGE1 uH4stVSw4pn49deOhMWZJYWaHcIPhMwQhIWC1NP/FdOWvSHDg+rQ3V7bGA7jNmwiU9co mBne/6FsND/7O/vEcqGZPryJarskhofQwL90C2Nu+nvbmlbVDzjSDU7R/3p8LEfUJgIC /BmSHidwjG4Aa+3T6sgiuqcSd8ljCzMRHDDoX28h6jUnbEa/GndHyl+3yb8xzmbVnnkB xYxA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.221.3.200 with SMTP id nz8mr442183vcb.67.1386701673154; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.110.138 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU404-EAS21477E2B3D3958FC54719F293D20@phx.gbl>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C415C86@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <BLU404-EAS21477E2B3D3958FC54719F293D20@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:54:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMwTW+jcZw-cdkOscYEYjS_sLVQ37SudvW2qD381Dbdt+BwRMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: bryandonnovan@gmail.com
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01176885a34ccc04ed32a4d4"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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, 10 Dec 2013 18:54:43 -0000

   1.

   All entities MUST support H.264
   1.

      acceptable
      2.

      ipr concerns, prefer FOSS
      2.

   All entities MUST support VP8
   1.

      yes
      2.


      3.

   All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
   1.

      acceptable
      2.

      less compliant browser chooses de-facto MTI.  Same as no MTI, I think.
      4.

   Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at
   least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      acceptable
      2.

      (3b)
      5.

   All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      acceptable
      2.

      prefer to not transcode
      6.

   All entities MUST support H.261
   1.

      no
      2.

      want MTI with better coding efficiency, or none
      7.

   There is no MTI video codec
   1.

      acceptable
      2.

      may require transcoding when ms/apple implement, possibly by 2015
      8.

   All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
   one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      acceptable
      2.


      9.

   All entities MUST support Theora
   1.

      yes
      2.


      10.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
   1.

      acceptable
      2.


      11.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
   1.

      acceptable
      2.


      12.

   All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
   support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
   1.

      acceptable
      2.


      13.

   All entities MUST support H.263
   1.

      acceptable
      2.


      14.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
   1.

      yes
      2.


      15.

   All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
   1.

      yes
      2.


      16.

   All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
   1.

      no
      2.

      coding efficiency



On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote:

> My responses below.
>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support H.264
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> Yes
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >>
> >> 2.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No.
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
>
> VP8 has not yet completed the MPEG standardization process and additional
> IPR declarations are therefore possible, or even likely. Also, we have an
> IPR declaration with a refusal to license.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 3.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize
>
>
> VP8 has not yet completed the MPEG standardization process and additional
> IPR declarations are therefore possible, or even likely. Also, we have an
> IPR declaration with a refusal to license.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 4.
> >>
> >>    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
> >>    support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize
>
> VP8 has not yet completed the MPEG standardization process and additional
> IPR declarations are therefore possible, or even likely. Also, we have an
> IPR declaration with a refusal to license.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 5.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
>
> All implementations will do this anyway so why bother?
>
> >>
> >> 6.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support H.261
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
>
> Poor quality; no incentive to implement.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 7.
> >>
> >>    There is no MTI video codec
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> Acceptable
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >>
> >> 8.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
> >>    least one of H.264 and VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The fallback would be h.261, meaning inferior quality; implementations
> > not widespread
> >
> >>
> >> 9.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support Theora
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The licensing/IPR situation is not well understood with regards to
> > Theora, nor is its performance (in terms of quality vs. bitrate)
> >
> >>
> >> 10.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The fallback would be h.261, meaning inferior quality; implementations
> > not widespread
> >
> >>
> >> 11.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
>
> H.263 quality is inferior and will require additional licensing fees.
>
>
> >>
> >> 12.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and
> >>    MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> >
>
>
> VP8 has not yet completed the MPEG standardization process and additional
> IPR declarations are therefore possible, or even likely. Also, we have an
> IPR declaration with a refusal to license.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 13.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support H.263
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
>
> H.263 quality is inferior, will require licensing fees.
>
> >>
> >> 14.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No.
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The fallback would be Theora, and for it the licensing/IPR situation is
> > not well understood, nor is its performance (in terms of quality vs.
> > bitrate).
> >
> >>
> >> 15.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The licensing/IPR situation is not well understood with regards to
> > Theora, nor is its performance (in terms of quality vs. bitrate)
> >
> >>
> >> 16.
> >>
> >>    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
> >>
> >>     1.
> >>
> >>        Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>
> No
>
> >
> >>
> >>     2.
> >>
> >>        Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
> >>        summarize them:
> >
> > The performance (in terms of quality vs. bitrate) is lousy.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> H.264 is a reference to the proposal in
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/
> >>
> >>
> >> VP8 is a reference to the proposal in
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/
> >>
> >>
> >> Theora is a reference to Xiph.org Theora Specification from March 16,
> >> 2011 (http://www.xiph.org/theora/doc/Theora_I_spec.pdf)
> >>
> >>
> >> H.263 is a reference to profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of ITU-T
> >> rec H.263 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/)
> >>
> >>
> >> H.261 is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4587
> >>
> >>
> >> Motion JPEG is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2435
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >> The Chairs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email