Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 9AA711AE397 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 oG6GV6G0Brha for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8251AE37E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hq4so298578wib.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ae44BzXEjf6+JbmJjeyr14xaUL/xYdOmf5obxXlFqXA=; b=KKT3fvqCgvS2s31B73azcx68YqA5f2AyK8Zamstt67FtMZ85y91zlYYKm7byY2ofzn wBUgmdze6tImWiO23JE7iOm01jUkB7E0ot3PdFNrHC+xKCSTTc0pdNHqiJ77w0A+oYy4 Rl5kIRaFo6DZlnpctBqZPCCdpPDMzGL8Vbg7I/X/mnIJRhKVeHV5VOyEaSWIRnufa9Ek wx3lFnnyqaV6Tw3hdc7V0C5p8SMZWTYjfwiBdDw3ubjJYd+dcmqVdPzYq9QnVuOPpUvG lCdHL/kiV2DXkm1arQ1hnqU2A9mrQduTyIdgqSRgwHW93q/lG9uZsmensAmljYa/0B8m M0Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHXPOMh5SjEyVLXv98duJOFnPxbUOs81MPQYcmA5X0qqfU1RRI0VjebiMIllxiF8deCjfP
X-Received: by 10.194.122.99 with SMTP id lr3mr7182484wjb.21.1385070423524; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:46:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:101:8003:300:481b:90de:7d1a:71eb]
In-Reply-To: <2CA8952C-9AD0-49F0-A8E9-160099D09DC9@nokia.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <2CA8952C-9AD0-49F0-A8E9-160099D09DC9@nokia.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:46:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN2-y9EEyON7DpNysY_uT4Z4kzAm_Wt01Ha6UzgmUDmWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Isomaki Markus (Nokia-SIR/Espoo)" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011779b595688804ebb6d6e2
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 21:47:13 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>; wrote:

>  Would the implement any two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.261} option solve your
> problem?
>

Well, for my specific problem, essentially anything that mandates
either VP8 or H.264 or both or the user's choice would. H.261
doesn't bring anything to the party. I'm trying to figure out who it
does benefit and coming up a bit short.

-Ekr

 +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
>
>