Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 C85B51AC82A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 ZFFrYVLyayFL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AB91A1F7E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-c6-528dca9de32a
Received: from ESESSHC021.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 74.9E.03802.D9ACD825; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:55:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:55:52 +0100
Message-ID: <528DCA98.3040102@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:55:52 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com> <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl> <528C79AD.10608@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl> <528D0355.3090603@googlemail.com> <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpiluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3Vnfuqd4gg0vbTC3W/mtnt5jf/5HF gclj68kfbB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4vPcfa8EToYo/u5QbGJv5uxg5OSQETCSm nr3MDmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgEKPE/uYtYAkhgeWMEsv2M4PYvALaEqveNrOB2CwCqhJ9/VvB atgELCRu/mgEi4sKBEtc7V0HVS8ocXLmExYQW0TATGL9+/+sXYwcHMIClhIXjptA7JrMLLF/ xncmkBpOAVuJHdMvsoHUSAiIS/Q0BoGEmQUMJI4smsMKYctLNG+dzQxxmrZEQ1MH6wRGwVlI ts1C0jILScsCRuZVjOy5iZk56eVGmxiB4Xhwy2/VHYx3zokcYpTmYFES5/3w1jlISCA9sSQ1 OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA+PWKTp9E5yl/Jfa67gyeFe1cpX8Lqx+qsx74Ja8/8alav/y hY3vn1+63unO+jfhbF9XyDx7HTRpqnCllI+D1dVjy540Z3C/Vbdycphx93/QsmPGk4zsin6o dSwxm1PVsHN2kqHjEvadR97GfnBZefVSc9HSI292fX32vYhH7x5T+4qlh6+0fd2txFKckWio xVxUnAgANmJzvxUCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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 08:56:08 -0000

Dave,

Just to be clear. I will not add any new option to the list as I
understand this is currently a discussion piece. You and any other have
until the end of 27th of November to request an addition to the list of
alternatives.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2013-11-20 20:42, David Singer wrote:
> I think we should think hard about H.263 instead of H.261 as the third fallback.  Why?
> 
> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/
> 
> 
> 
> H.263 was first published in March 1996, so it's 17 years old.  The restrictions (e.g. on picture size) are no WORSE than H.261.  Yes, more recent amendments deal with this (and a plethora of other issues), so we’d need to settle on which of those are mandatory (the usual profiling discussion).
> 
> There are 34 records in the patent database against H.261, mostly from 1989 but one as recent as 2005 (though that is a re-file).  That's 2.2 (reciprocity), as was one other I checked.
> 
> Rather surprisingly, there are only 31 against H.263!  The most recent is 2011, and is also option 2.  Most are 1997-2001.
> 
> 
> On this quick glance, H.263 appears no worse than H.261. IANAL (as I am sure you have all noticed).
> 
> 
> H.263 is much more widely supported and mandated.  It has been mandated in the 3GPP specs for years (for lots of services, including videoconf), and is effectively the fallback codec today in the industry, as I understand.  It was ubiquitous in video telephony for years, and I suspect many of those systems still ship it.
> 
> So, would “MUST implement at least two of (H.264, VP8, H.263)” work?
> 
> (I am asking the question, not even answering on behalf of my company, yet.  Let’s get the issues on the table.)
> 
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------