Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264

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) <
keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> 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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> > Sent: 25 October 2013 09:04
> > To: harald@alvestrand.no; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > 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
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>