Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Sun, 24 November 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
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 CC7531AE2FD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:47:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] 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 lXg2ctppuMzM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ka.mail.enyo.de (ka.mail.enyo.de [87.106.162.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EACA1AE3D5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.135.4] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by ka.mail.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1Vkcpo-0001cB-0m; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:47:00 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1Vkcpn-0001nQ-Lo; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:46:59 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
References: <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBD13.5040801@gmail.com> <528FD429.7090002@nostrum.com> <528FDE5E.5080301@librevideo.org> <CE523335-0146-4FA5-A735-1EB4A8B3F1EF@apple.com> <20131123003548.GD3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <529006BB.609@nostrum.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E6760@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:46:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E6760@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> (Stefan Slivinski's message of "Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:42:45 -0600")
Message-ID: <87zjot927w.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 16:47:12 -0000

* Stefan Slivinski:

> Alright fast forward, Chrome adds H.261 but continues to use VP8.
> IE uses H.261 and H.264, Safari uses H.261 and H.264 and Firefox
> does H.261, H.264 and VP8.  So far so good.  Chrome can talk using
> VP8 to Firefox, Safari can talk H.264 to IE, Firefox can either
> H.264 or VP8 to everyone.  As long as Chrome users don't try to call
> IE or Safari, we're in good shape, otherwise we need to transcode
> using some undefined cloud based transcoder service or just use
> H.261.

Or use a WebRTC implementation which is written in Actionscript and
thus has access to Chrome's existing H.264 support:

<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-media-server/articles/encoding-live-video-h264.html>

I don't think availability of licensed H.264 implementations is a
problem.  It's just that the MPEG LA licensing conditions date back to
the early 2000s and it's totally unclear how they'll translate to
WebRTC application developers and commercial end users.  (If you don't
believe me, go and read Adobe's Flash Player 11 licensing agreement.)