IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sslivinski@lifesize.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 3CF3E1AE151 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 XzQLwxcF0sMD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E3DA1AE06D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.lifesize.com ([207.114.244.10]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob111.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo6HJa3lA1uG8pQsYlXjrBGst8bR1jjz@postini.com; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:20:25 PST
Received: from ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:13:04 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
To: "'creslin@digium.com'" <creslin@digium.com>, "'Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com'" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:13:04 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: Ac7nBZ2DtZ6r5EQkSgW8jOxOEZwhKAAATuia
Message-ID: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E5@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHZ_z=y+T6s0ifeRW+JregdyUs7mfp4Lzc+3gmkWNuNGDPf+zw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'rtcweb@ietf.org'" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:20:35 -0000

But how does this avoid IPR issues? 


----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Fredrickson [mailto:creslin@digium.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:04 PM
To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

I also agree with Ron's suggestion....

Implement 2 of 3 seems to be the best way to absolutely preserve interop.

Matthew Fredrickson

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM,  <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
> Would the implement any two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261} option solve your
> problem?
>
> +1 for Ron's reasoning.
>
> Markus
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 23:15, "ext Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>> <basilgohar@librevideo.org> wrote:
>> > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>>
>> More than one person has already.
>>
>> And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>> spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>> crappy.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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