Re: [rtcweb] Codec Draft

[Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>]

Harald:

Fair points, failure is always a possibility/option.

Changing "will" to "should" addresses concern for fall-back option in 
unobjectionable, normal form, yes?

"The REQUIRED video codec should be a royalty-free codec which has been 
specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other 
due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of its 
royalty-free status."

Rob

On 12/13/2011 12:26 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 12:10 PM, Rob Glidden wrote:
>> Cary:
>>
>> I have not seen a specific follow up text, but video codec 
>> requirements section appears overtaken by events and should be changed.
> Rob,
>
> I think that's a very optimistic spin on events.
>>
>> Here is proposed text that will hopefully reflect consensus spirit:
>>
>> ...
>> 3.2. Video Codec Requirements
>> If the MPEG-LA issues an intent to offer H.264 baseline profile on a 
>> royalty free basis for use in browsers before March 15, 2012, then 
>> the REQUIRED video codecs will be H.264 baseline. If this does not 
>> happen by that the date, then the REQUIRED video codec will be VP8 
>> [I-D.webm].
>>
>> The REQUIRED video codec will be a royalty-free codec which has been 
>> specified by a recognized standards process such as MPEG or other 
>> due-process standards group and provide reviewable substantiation of 
>> its royalty-free status.
>
> If you mean that the required video codec should be the output of the 
> ISO MPEG IVC or WebVC efforts, remember that:
>
> 1) Neither of these efforts will be available until 2013 - IF 
> everything goes according to plan. It is entirely possible that 
> neither of these efforts will deliver an outcome.
> 2) Neither of these efforts has any guaranteed outcome in terms of 
> resulting video quality.
>
> So I'm afraid I have to be counted as "not part of the consensus" for 
> the text you suggested.
>
> I still hope that we'll sooner or later make a positive statement 
> about what we actually need in a baseline video codec in terms of 
> quality, industry support, stability of specification or royalty-free 
> status; so far, all attempts to start debating what we actually 
> require have died without even a whimper.
>
>                          Harald
>