Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net> Thu, 14 November 2013 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
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 C31B821E80D9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WoaOgeh4gZvy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com (ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com [70.39.232.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C435821E80CB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:62664) by ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>) id 1VgmdO-000092-37 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:26:27 -0500
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ld10so1367370pab.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=l+vmF9Kqjhlu4vL5S4J28pNn1KjCmC4kQHY4Oagthqc=; b=APKa9yTeyrIrOBu2NRScFYd6QCtzNASp6yHIgfqgkDeh5Uvd60pmMWcQ1LV0oQa2Hc T62XoJ2QaLlux/x3YODKMWpRbU939aORNcc9VC9Lmd8GEuRdw11S4rMjAhgPCKGtMUI8 fWpLtedXFImce710n6DpQYclvBLS0MVUtDKNV9e+Gq0r/CCIoxiCOIvgyZeXUWd1W1tG ytm2TkRQYo0VyLOSzdhyb48o5dhvRyyBQ4osT8rY3i5V27RBKSzTtBo3unSq3lUzMZjR nOwLMmk91EIFCIMQKjqb05OM/Ptpwy3+oFaQmLQkYFnEDT9r87yKq7kj++i6C/ObEoaC O3xQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.118.129 with SMTP id km1mr17772263pab.127.1384395977313; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.49.48 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:26:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CEA93953.AA11A%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <CEA93953.AA11A%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:26:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+23+fHWsaz3mbTfmw+so_9Mj5BXKAEkQCvNfr5bo+0G9s80mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ffbab6b74ebed04eb19ceff
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jdrosen.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ecbiz71.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: jdrosen+jdrosen.net/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:26:43 -0000

Regarding number 4, here is how I think of it:

If browsers implement both, it means that an application provider wishing
to offer a service (take Hangouts or Skype as examples), can pick the one
they like, implement just that in their native apps (mobile, desktop, etc.)
where the app provider has control over the full stack, and still work with
clients of that service which run in the browser, where the app provider
does not have control over the full stack as the real-time media stack is
provided by the browser and not the web app.

The benefit of this approach is that it enables interoperability between
clients on different platforms for the same provider.

The drawback is, for inter-service federation (which requires much more
than just codecs to be aligned), you might run into a case where a user
using a mobile app from provider 1 (say, Skype) calls a user using a mobile
app from provider 2 (say, Hangouts), and then since each chose a different
video codec, there is no common codec. Of course that assumes the two
providers in question are willing to even federate in the first place.

-Jonathan R.




On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>; wrote:

> Hi Gonzalo,
> Re your point 5.: ³either or² is often understood as an exclusive or.  I
> don¹t think anyone proposed that.  A better way to express 5. would be
> ³All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8².
> Stephan
>
> On 11.13.2013, 12:23 , "Gonzalo Camarillo"
> <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
> >
> >As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection of the
> >MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we have on
> >the table:
> >
> > 1. All entities MUST support H.264
> > 2. All entities MUST support VP8
> > 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> > 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> > 5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
> > 6. All entities MUST support H.261
> > 7. There is no MTI video codec
> >
> >If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
> >above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
> >that point, the chairs will be listing all the received alternatives and
> >proposing a process to select one among them.
> >
> >Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not need to
> >write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
> >document regarding video codecs.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gonzalo
> >Responsible AD for this WG
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>



-- 
Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
jdrosen@jdrosen.net
http://www.jdrosen.net