IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 C074A1AE380 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:41:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 IlQ64YAJ5w7Q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:41:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1611AE37F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ca18so1751517wib.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Pql//zK7fu8zndPdrdIYmE29saAyji6zzlmDn59Wtt0=; b=Wlg5Ht3noD/PQm1HqMCnx/jPWIvCprXfIgQqEJFNiiRhKjS8ROjhke7HCBJO9VgfCA ZUFXf+wJDbjIZmy/UXNlKJ4CpekAdavUv4HF3x5ZZG6HjS5fptQGaNgXJ0YC0foQ96mR sm60Qs8tTiaeCE38FcsnA9kNquL664GOm/t8Js/1TIkUDA0aLYog3KdMnJoYWrLdQ0q9 rzucd5U1lvcJywEcMjopW4oOKo0nckV75wiDH+Pd9U9hCnj9g4v7xqZXa5I0X/z7RHc8 /vR0gbG8Qp1HAmSO0EwkgL5x+hEuXlqt+nVKCcX8E9YogbDYi15WCS++oaB919eY/pKA GiLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAdlwUEBnDsr5CwhABd/SUiYnxdzQ9Ju3o7egzOFJxfcSlJ6zEBI7sGzFDWsNwf536tHTY
X-Received: by 10.180.24.137 with SMTP id u9mr7720862wif.5.1385070083524; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:41:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:40:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:101:8003:300:481b:90de:7d1a:71eb]
In-Reply-To: <528E7C26.3000100@googlemail.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <528E7C26.3000100@googlemail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:40:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOHeof1MGFpV3+gcecrfuBwoRD1ghokjrYMy97u37W+sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04447f67515c7204ebb6c2a5"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 21:41:34 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>wrote:

> My understanding is that WebRTC is not a browser-only thing.


I don't recall anyone saying that it was, and that's missing the point.
Rather, given that H.261 is really lame and that most everyone is
going to deploy *either* VP8 or H.264, I'm trying to figure out why
mandating H.261 is useful


 Also: Just because Mozilla may have found a way to sidestep the H.264
> licensing issues with the help of Cisco, this doesn't mean this "fix"
> applies everywhere. For example, is the blob acceptable for Iceweasel? And
> what do the limited distribution rights of OpenH264 mean regarding system
> administration (e.g., replicating machines with disk images)?
>

These may be relevant questions in some other thread, but not here.

However, with that said, Cisco's blob should be usable for IceWeasel.
Whether the IceWeasel people opt to use it is of course up to them.
WRT the second question, 100k images is a lot of images.

-Ekr

Maik
>
> Am 21.11.2013 22:14, schrieb Eric Rescorla:
>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
>> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
>> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
>>      > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec
>> [...] ?
>>
>>     More than one person has already.
>>
>>     And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>>     spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>>     crappy.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     rtcweb mailing list
>>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email