IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 07:32 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 B811711E8215 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:32:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, 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 og5fO3qfYh0p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA1811E8145 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n7so396510lam.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:32:25 -0800 (PST)
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=CKZ2K4P2+sXTLi6OgZvTu9Cg7MIRVRvqjoY4AUyNuiQ=; b=CI56+EDzG796/ddwi3Nzy7VQCd82RPI0pxbUNaxnJmm96J05mbgdcfRoRpfXS+dA/c 6O+5MRPIcnWlWx7gmZ3AAjGWJtAarXzsM18rx9Gr1SHdQdqchsjcYG/27FjZ8qEXhJaF RgKWQGMdQvMLKDzEArwn/OPGpPCwutSh5+fiC6IUVVre8tC6HXWKZZIctyr62A2O3TMK fF8KwMkoiNU7RvkrvcbDA7DevhsyT0I9FEQLX7M8VFS3IiwXJuns7KhYJUvUIigqEPQX m0LcIun0E24yv7T2u+wWVOSAqzKBd5xN+9ducoM62Wq8Jf+ECpX5WLS4nV8p5LnrRT5L 5SJQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.5.228 with SMTP id v4mr9541964lav.7.1383895945692; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:32:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <527C7E61.7050609@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CEA19328.A9A84%stewe@stewe.org> <527C7E61.7050609@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:32:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiRjvCVAjFm4Y5mr_JXHr_u9j+-7P28n_XYtkxRJgAbX1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d1a403fc9dc04eaa56220"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI video codec, charter, RFC 3929
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 07:32:27 -0000

+1
H.261 will anyway only be used in a small percentage of cases. Most will
implement VP8 or/and H.264 in addition to the MTI.


On 8 November 2013 08:02, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 07/11/2013 9:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
> (3) b) Mandating no video codec may well be the worst option for
> interoperability, but has the advantage of being future-proof.  How many
> folks implementing H.323 are unhappy with the requirement to implement
> H.261 QCIF and G.711???
>
> Hi Stephan,
>
> Just a point of clarification: I hate dead wood as much as the next guy,
> so if you see me advocating H.261 as MTI please understand that I am also
> advocating removing it as MTI the second we have consensus on a credible
> replacement. I don't think anything in the spec should be written in stone.
> The list of MTI codecs *should* be updated every 5-10 years.
>
> Gili
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email