Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Wed, 17 October 2012 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <elagerway@gmail.com>
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 1383121F87EF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.675, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKKYqki3beJF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8998521F87E4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so5471090lam.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uGbY5R4eWV29YmWfzAltUrF21rwXIe4Yo8zar1Cm2ww=; b=a+U/b7ZuZ6UMpwKDSbK1mMk3zdSDqMVEDcl7PniFHhqkpRftxbgtJkd3syEZKQFQ5b 0cc5gOlsvRDoB8l7krnyj0ofbhuD7q1FOpPQrQZG2K6a2zIQWTgGf857R1hIDlP/u6pn fpuuQ95P2nyB4S1cMpSSFwwOK6I9dM1ZU+FDkymga+WvUmVEPYA70Dj4D5Z1gfzaedI7 Lwq9uBorLiMqSgfxPxaE83yzC7akK7DDe9WxgwgOWc5C2R1Drdk1N4WszdP1T742FVGr Cfda7xF4ThxoFs2Ywi5yjo4YY99TSjUH4fA8kgkA4HXIlE/Z50SLnAlklsTlsL9K+qp1 cWEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.23.197 with SMTP id o5mr6614871lbf.114.1350464215420; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: elagerway@gmail.com
Received: by 10.114.68.82 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <507D4302.9050108@ericsson.com>
References: <507D4302.9050108@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:56:55 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JMBNPOkpIwTcu7qP4UO1z7f4qww
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTaxcBezxbjd36Xkev5ugof9BAt3vdpZaO_qA7A0ujhp3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b390f7df4d78e2604cc3d7388
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:56:58 -0000

Thought it important to point out the fact that FREE-P8 (VP8) would likely
be the preferred codec implemented by independent developers. Royalties and
admin headaches create a barrier to entry. Independent dev shops equate to
a great deal of innovation and some of these have been responsible for
dictating the standard in market with hundreds of millions of users. Yes,
there is plenty of interoperability with 264 today but that doesn't mean it
will be that way tomorrow.

Can't we do both, as we have done for Audio MTI? Cost for implementation of
both is not really that high and if VP8 is included it will likely be the
choice for rtc indie devs globally, spurring innovation.

If unknown IPR is the only real reason not to include VP8 then I maybe we
are not trying hard enough. RTCweb / WebRTC is supposed to be the next big
thing, why hamper innovation like this?

I understand this will likely not count as a vote, just wanted to voice
some concerns. My apologies in advance if this has been answered in another
thread or offline. I searched the threads and found no reference and my
double isn't always available.

/Erik

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com>
* | m 1.604.562.8647*
****


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> WG,
>
> The Video Codec selection internet draft to RTCWEB WG I have seen are
> the following four:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec/
>
> Please review information and proposals and lets start discussing them
> on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting in Atlanta.
>
> 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: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>