Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

Correction - meant H.264 in the message below.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Sent: 25 October 2013 12:13
> To: Leon Geyser; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
> 
> If you want that, then you would need both VP8 and H.264 as MTI.
>  
> While VP8 might give you what you want in webrtc islands, it 
> would not be able to communicate outside those islands, where 
> the predominant codec is still H.248.
>  
> While a position of both codecs being MTI would be acceptable 
> to me, I don't see the VP8 proponents going there.
>  
> Keith
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Leon Geyser [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 	Sent: 25 October 2013 10:05
> 	To: [e-mail]
> 	Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> 	Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
> 	
> 	
> 	It would be nice if video just works for the end user 
> instead of them having to install a different browser or 
> buying a different device with a different browser.
> 	
> 	
> 	I personally think there needs to be a MTI video codec 
> even if it is an old codec such as H.261. Although the codec 
> should not require a lot of bandwidth to look decent which 
> excludes something such as MJPEG.
> 	
> 
> 
> 	On 25 October 2013 10:50, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 	
> 
> 		Agree
> 		
> 		We can either explicitly make a "no MTI" 
> decision, or just let it become the default by the absence of 
> agreement.
> 		
> 		Keith
> 		
> 
> 		> -----Original Message-----
> 		> From: [e-mail]
> 		> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> [e-mail]
> 		> Sent: 25 October 2013 09:04
> 		> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> 		> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue
> 		>
> 		
> 		> Hi,
> 		>
> 		> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 		> >
> 		> > Formalistically, the people who argue for 
> abandoning an
> 		> MTI, like the
> 		> > people who argue for adapting an antiquated 
> codec, have not
> 		> put in a
> 		> > draft by the chairs' deadline of October 6, 
> so have not
> 		> made a proposal.
> 		> >
> 		> > But I'm not the one who argued for this to 
> be put on the
> 		> agenda for 2 hours.
> 		> > The people who pushed for this to be on the 
> agenda for 2
> 		> hours need to
> 		> > come forward and say why they believe this 
> is a good use of
> 		> our time.
> 		> > I haven't yet heard a VP8 proponent saying so.
> 		> >
> 		>
> 		> I thought it has been mainly the VP8 
> proponents who have
> 		> insisted to continue this discussion and have 
> it on the agenda.
> 		>
> 		> I am a H.264 proponent but it's clear to me 
> there is no
> 		> consensus, no substantially new information 
> since March, and
> 		> for that reason the IETF should not pick 
> either H.264 or VP8
> 		> as *mandatory*. And consequently 2 hours is 
> too much time for this.
> 		>
> 		> It is useful to discuss pros and cons of 
> H.264 and VP8 and
> 		> compare them, since most likely every WebRTC 
> endpoint will
> 		> implement at least one of them, but I think 
> we need to stop
> 		> pushing for the decision of mandating one of them.
> 		>
> 		> Of course, if we come back to this issue 
> every November, we
> 		> can eventually choose H.264 as mandatory, 
> after all of its
> 		> IPR has expired :-)
> 		>
> 		> Markus
> 		> _______________________________________________
> 		> rtcweb mailing list
> 		> [e-mail]
> 		> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 		>
> 		_______________________________________________
> 		rtcweb mailing list
> 		[e-mail]
> 		https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 		
> 
> 
>