Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 12/9/2014 3:10 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> David Singer said:
>
> "I am trying to find out a simple answer:  how many endpoints would, 
> in fact, expect to support both codecs?"
>
> [BA]  The proposal has built-in incentives for implementers in each 
> category to either ignore the recommendations or ignore 
> interoperability (or both).
>
> As it stands, the proposal doesn't require that "WebRTC-compatible 
> endpoints" support either H.264 or VP8.  I understand why an endpoint 
> not supporting video shouldn't have to, but if the WebRTC-compatible 
> endpoint does support video, why shouldn't it support at least one of 
> the MTI codecs?   The way it is written a WebRTC-compatible endpoint 
> that supported only H.261 would be compliant while being able to 
> communicate with either browsers or non-browsers, which seems silly.

I've seen a device that supports webrtc but can't reasonably handle VP8 
or H.264, but can run an implementation of H.261, so this really 
exists.  I wouldn't call it great, but it's not non-sensical.

As mentioned, Firefox as shipping (for months now) in release supports 
H.264 and VP8 (and perhaps more soon).

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com