IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Brent Kelly <bkelly@kelcor.com> Fri, 27 December 2013 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <bkelly@kelcor.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 BADFD1AE716 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:09:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 CaFNu__ERByX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0157.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21E71AE715 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.166.144) by CO1PR06MB239.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.166.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.842.7; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:08:59 +0000
Received: from CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.165]) by CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.165]) with mapi id 15.00.0842.003; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:08:58 +0000
From: Brent Kelly <bkelly@kelcor.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "fluffy@cisco.com" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHPA0AnbGNEvzaeKkiywbcnkgNEkZpolBNw
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:08:58 +0000
Message-ID: <ba6c5be3424b4be3840777835703c4d4@CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <CEE31905.3E4F5%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEE31905.3E4F5%stewe@stewe.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.123.38.38]
x-forefront-prvs: 0073BFEF03
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(243025003)(189002)(199002)(164054003)(81542001)(561944002)(15202345003)(46102001)(87936001)(53806001)(81686001)(69226001)(74316001)(74366001)(4396001)(2656002)(56816005)(81342001)(85306002)(19580405001)(90146001)(83322001)(87266001)(47736001)(19580395003)(50986001)(76576001)(77096001)(76482001)(79102001)(59766001)(77982001)(49866001)(63696002)(31966008)(16236675002)(15975445006)(65816001)(56776001)(47976001)(33646001)(76796001)(83072002)(85852003)(54356001)(74706001)(54316002)(51856001)(47446002)(76786001)(66066001)(19300405004)(81816001)(74876001)(74502001)(80976001)(19609705001)(80022001)(74662001)(24736002)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR06MB239; H:CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:129.123.38.38; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ba6c5be3424b4be3840777835703c4d4CO1PR06MB238namprd06pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: kelcor.com
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:09:11 -0000

My input on the video codec straw poll:


1.    All entities MUST support H.264

a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable

b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: May kill video WebRTC innovation given liability risk

2.    All entities MUST support VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

3.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Yes

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: More work for implementing the standard, but it could allow the different camps to optimize their own preferred codec. More risk too.

4.    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Make the standard "standard" everywhere.

5.    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Enables WebRTC silos and interoperability issues

6.    All entities MUST support H.261

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

7.    There is no MTI video codec

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: I'd hate this option to win the day, but at least the rest of the standard would not be held hostage by the video issue

8.    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Don't like H.261

9.    All entities MUST support Theora

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

10.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

11.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: H.263 is not the best solution, but it could be used as a default codec if one of the others is not supported. This may be a practical option to break the deadlock.

12.  All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

13.  All entities MUST support H.263

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

14.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

15.  All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

16.  All entities MUST support Motion JPEG

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:


H.264 is a reference to the proposal in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>


VP8 is a reference to the proposal in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/>


Theora is a reference to Xiph.org Theora Specification from March 16, 2011 (http://www.xiph.org/theora/doc/Theora_I_spec.pdf)


H.263 is a reference to profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of ITU-T rec H.263 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/)


H.261 is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4587


Motion JPEG is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2435


Thanks,


The Chairs

_______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email