Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2014-12-13 17:36 GMT+01:00 Sean Turner <[e-mail]>:
> Just to be clear:  "No plan" does not mean that the requirement is immutable forever, just that we don't have a plan right now.  MTI requirements in IETF documents can always be updated, and they very frequently are.

That sounds good, but I'm still waiting for a response to my question
made yesterday:

>>  The rationale here is browser accommodation for very constrained "WebRTC compatible" devices, which will most typically be concerned with browser interoperation. The example that's been tossed around in this space is the "WebRTC doorbell" -- when someone rings the bell, you navigate to its interface using WebRTC, and stream an image from a small, embedded camera. In these kinds of very-low-cost devices, you're going to likely see hardware video encoding (e.g. do a web search for NVS2200), which will likely be one codec or another, but not both.
>>
>> The goal is continued browser support for such devices in perpetuity.

> May I know where in the WG chapter is that goal defined please?


If the above is a real goal of this WG (is it?) then that means that
future revisions should respect it ad aternum. This is: even if in the
future a new *good* video codec 100% RF appears, implementations MUST
still include both VP8 and H264 (and deal with patent/licensing
issues, which is a show stopper for certain players in the web
ecosystem).



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>