Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

Ron <ron@debian.org> Sat, 02 November 2013 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
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 CEB9211E81F0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 05:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 lf+1-HKjv0-6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201F611E8118 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 05:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppp118-210-230-117.lns20.adl6.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([118.210.230.117]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2013 23:18:09 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDB24F8F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 23:18:02 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gopQNJssJm-Q for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 23:18:01 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3C444F902; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 23:18:01 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 23:18:01 +1030
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20131102124801.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:48:24 -0000

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:47:31PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open source H.264 codec
> available and usable by the community. We look forward to seeing the result
> of this effort.
> 
> Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully open,
> high-quality video codec that you can download, compile for your platform,
> include in your binary, distribute and put into production today - is the
> best choice of a Mandatory to Implement video codec for the WebRTC effort.

This is my belief also.

While the Cisco announcement is certainly an interesting approach to trying
to extricate their existing technology investment from the deep quagmire of
encumbrances that currently bind it, the result still falls well short of
not only the ideal, but also the already existing alternative choices that
we have available to us.

Given the choice between a genuinely Free option, that anyone is free to
improve and distribute however they wish - and a no-cost binary-only option
that is available from only a single supplier, while Happy Hour lasts - the
decision still seems to be something of a no-brainer.  Even before you also
consider that the Free Option is not constrained to only its lowest possible
performance mode in the implementation that is available to people today.

VP8 still seems like the only obvious and enduring choice for an MTI codec
for WebRTC at present.

  Ron