Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[e-mail]>]

IMO, mandatory codec revisiting has to be done for all webrtc entities.
Why not doing it for web browsers when one codec is proved to be royalty
free? Are the specs going to force any browser flavour to pay many forever?

Btw, from the minutes sent on the mailing list, I understood that the
decision is to be confirmed on the list (which is the norm for IETF
anyhow). Unless I missed some messages, I haven't seen any discussion
here following the last IETF meeting, exposing the conclusion of the
meeting and asking to have a decision on that.

Daniel

On 26/11/14 00:33, Adam Roach wrote:
> I've updated the draft-ietf-rtcweb-video based on the minutes from
> Hawaii. Now that we have a clear path to success, I'd like to get the
> document finalized and published as quickly as possible. This means I
> need your feedback on the remaining open issues (1, 4, and 5, below).
> If you are CCed on this mail, it's because you took an action item in
> Hawaii, and I'm waiting to hear back from you.
>
> New version: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/
> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03.txt
> ____
>
> Action item for Harald Alvestrand from the minutes:
>> Mo Zanaty: An IANA registered header with reference to 3GPP document.
>> Codec specific mechanism way of doing this.
>> Harald: Will send some suggestions on doing this.
>
> Action item for Bernard Aboba and Stephan Wenger: collect list of
> H.264 SEI messages we want to call out as MUST and/or SHOULD.
> ____
>
> Open Issue 1: If you don't want sRGB to be the default color space,
> say something now.
>
> Open Issue 2 (closed): Took "screen source video metadata" issue out
> of the document, as this is an RTP issue, not a codec issue.
>
> Open Issue 3 (closed): New text in "stream orientation" section
> calling out various MUST/SHOULD/MAY levels, based on what I took away
> from the mic in Hawaii. If you care about this, double-check that
> these are what you expect them to be.
>
> Open Issue 4: In Toronto, it was suggested that we don't need to
> specify support for "bilinear" and "none" filter styles, since they're
> already required. I'm happy to remove the statement if someone can
> point me to where this is otherwise mandated. If no one comes forward
> with a citation, I'm going to close this open issue as harmless.
>
> Open Issue 5: Waiting on feedback from Bernard and Stefan, as detailed
> above.
>
> Open Issue 6 (closed): Please see the text in section 5 of the new
> document, which tracks the text from the Novel Proposal email pretty
> closely.
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda