Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 09:08 UTC
Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 5DE2A1AD6C1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 iSvDN8sjPMHr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x231.google.com (mail-bk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9047B1ACC91 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id my13so937122bkb.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=42RQVj2fZXvIryvZuoAsl3iQoKf+u/sCmIa4dwcKSvI=; b=bQD6ba5alFtqNiKWpiz8yzv1SZCFSS8m+YOn02FQp3Ti9GKyNAJaWpkobRiSfklpUj TNjjGVUeLjksXeNtNIukARHmeUh+WFOoAk3ZwM98kr5WSNWwwvB+MRxdi0r0Jsb2ZaV9 O2x47whKUjiKLSXxES+EM7sq+ltFC1DwdD6R2bxdBlqhwz/DFHM+a8wklans+z9jPRLs jheV1plaNW3VYQtwX1+0XK5xEIlYJbw0PTbl3Pn1kvmlq9T3O1xSnWocL7c3Qgado03L 9ds/HBg3aApaBAtwmfdENUqxGe8g6rUc6Xx5T+sjwRqrVkvy8HRD5RjZg9WjqhbJBtlF hkow==
X-Received: by 10.205.9.68 with SMTP id ov4mr15530774bkb.21.1384852091731; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (v2201202116457532.yourvserver.net. [46.38.243.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zl3sm19613157bkb.4.2013.11.19.01.08.09 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:09:18 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:08:21 -0000
I'm sure the prospect of implementing H.261 is not a desirable one but I wonder if - implementing the codec of "the other codec camp" is more desirable - the end-users will appreciate spuriously failing video calls Basically this boils down on what the question is. "Who enjoys implementing H.261?" clearly will be answered as "nobody". However, "who can live with the inconvenience of implementing H.261 for the sake of interoperability and accessibility" may be answered differently. It would, of course, be preferable if H.261 can be substituted with a higher performing alternative, although I guess the set of codecs with a universally accepted status as "no worries regarding IPR or licensing" is limited. Maik Am 19.11.2013 01:07, schrieb David Singer: > It's an interesting idea, but the quality of H.261, the availability of decent implementations, and its (functional) restrictions may mean that people are very loath to spend (waste) engineering time on it. Is this a MUST that would, in fact, get respected? > > > On Nov 17, 2013, at 11:54 , Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> just wondering if something like >> >> "9. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261." >> >> has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations supporting both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use on of those - H.261 should never be relevant there. >> >> It appears that all implementors are willing to implement either H.264 or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means that negotiation failure regarding a high-performance codec is a possiblity. In this case H.261 is actually useful so that basic video calls can still be established (for instance, I guess deaf people may always appreciate a video connection, as long as sign language can be transmitted). >> >> >> Maik >> >> >> Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller: >>> Hi, >>> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only H.264 or >>> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their >>> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change anytime in the >>> next few years. Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items 1 and 2 >>> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by focusing >>> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options. >>> The following alternatives has been proposed: >>> >>> 1. All entities MUST support H.264 >>> 2. All entities MUST support VP8 >>> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8 >>> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST >>> support at least one of H.264 and VP8 >>> 5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8 >>> 6. All entities MUST support H.261 >>> 7. There is no MTI video codec >>> 8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at >>> least one of H.264 and VP8 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jeremy Fuller >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >
- [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Robin Raymond
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gustavo Garcia
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jeremy Fuller
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Ross Finlayson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Thomas Reisinger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] H.263 licensing situation Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software cod… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Reference implementation of software… Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Gili
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Steve Kann
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Monty Montgomery
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward cb.list6
- [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selection - … cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 CBP (was: Video codec selectio… Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] cisco binary on ec2 Roman Shpount