Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Thu, 21 November 2013 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
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 6C8E31AE290 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:15:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347] autolearn=no
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 65b_MbXJJc6S for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567CB1AE282 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68ADA65971F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528E69E2.9020208@librevideo.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:15:30 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7DD@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7DD@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:15:41 -0000

On 11/21/2013 03:02 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> I in no way intended to suggest  a specific implementation of a video codec.  My question was around whether we are voting on requiring decoders (my assumption) or both encoders and decoders

The discussions, up to this point, have been about choosing an MTI video
format so that rtcweb endpoints can communicate with one-another.  I am
not sure how this goal can be achieved without having an encoder and a
decoder on both ends, sharing at least one common format, whether it is
H.261, Theora, H.264, VP8, or something else.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org