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

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Sat, 02 November 2013 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@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 A8EAC11E81F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 5Z-IhDt1-EOI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22c.google.com (mail-lb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A20A21E8095 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c11so4271377lbj.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 04:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=S9p2QRqOhtWOjF4jR6wEj2ncRj1DVRT6vMtcb5t/UPU=; b=ZYJcvSHJ22XBK6PDpf3Khj29RXIJjnhQIKSkYcVKnZl1eeB/h/2rkxtTfYDbvNyRKc bkOOHWlxJhKfdOMToS+YnqjRmpyGB4qLIquD278LHQ52AHPnTxvwVUqvxEXdzK3I8t/c o+8EkTccw4plN4ascX/3sx4tHrV1EKW3WIKtIpg/l3B9c54x+n4ohhHwayRxvf9xNOij 03M7NwZzRIet5yHskhrdqQW5Mz3TFCg7FSVhRwcsAloZqbpMRRoCU96owOAzzRsNzXvE yakimd646ASpeIFaLknqG42fPy48/z6+CaaD3nsUa6lNs/3l1flWVnMi5a6slJLiSi4M 4eyw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.157.67 with SMTP id wk3mr92854lbb.62.1383393391481; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 04:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 04:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLU404-EAS261C783EDA4575EE1A7E53593F40@phx.gbl>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <52740478.6030109@nostrum.com> <CAOJ7v-2+_4QZwc8vEtdwVDWSP-d-z+ggB0u+VM6WnA=f-k4-XA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU404-EAS261C783EDA4575EE1A7E53593F40@phx.gbl>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 13:56:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiTpW=Na5F24zcQH0BjebhBepDvCSfmzUQRd+17LnbrLOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3409caf18f404ea305fd5
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 11:56:42 -0000

Like Firefox and Opera...and the browser I might create in the future? :)
Firefox only has decoding support on some platforms, because it uses the
operating system's H.264 decoder if it has one so far as I know.

On 2 November 2013 13:31, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure I understand this completely. Isn't support for "the Rube
> Goldberg Machine" needed only on platforms that do not natively support
> H.264?
>
> On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
> I also want to reiterate that having a MTI codec means Mandatory To
> Implement.
>
> That means, that should we decide to go down the H.264 path, Firefox and
> others will be forced to support this Rube Goldberg machine for obtaining
> H.264 for an indeterminate amount of time, long after WebRTC has moved on
> to prefer other codecs.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>>  On 10/31/13 13:47, 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.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Harald that VP8 is a better codec than H.264 baseline in a
>> number of important ways.
>>
>> But I also want to reiterate that having an MTI codec has never been
>> about choosing the best codec or even a good codec. It's about choosing an
>> emergency backup codec-of-last-resort. It's about having one single
>> mandated codec that everyone has in their back pocket in case nothing else
>> works.
>>
>> The core of RTCWEB is about session *negotiation*. Endpoints will
>> negotiate the best codec they have in common. Once the next generation of
>> codecs come out, this "best codec in common" will only be the MTI if they
>> were about to fail anyway.
>>
>> So it doesn't have to be good.
>>
>> It just has to be better than failure.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>