Re: [rtcweb] VP8 vs H.264 - the core issue

["cb.list6" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 01:13 AM, cb.list6 wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no holding back vp8, it can always be negotiated.
>>
>> My guidance is no mti.
>>
>> I, for one, am tired of the gang-land ipr turf wars and posturing. This
>> argument is all about ipr, and ietf is explicitly setup to punt on all ipr
>> issue because they are hard.
>>
>> Any layperson can see there is no concensus to be found. That's why we
>> designed for codec negotiating and negotiating away from failure is left for
>> implementation
>>
> Formalistically, the people who argue for abandoning an MTI, like the people
> who argue for adapting an antiquated codec, have not put in a draft by the
> chairs' deadline of October 6, so have not made a proposal.
>

Yes. I should have done a better job of advocating no MTI in a timely manner.

I am happy to post an I-D when the tool comes back up, or i can email
it.  But, i respect the chairs need for a deadline and that i have
missed it.

I am happy to present the salient points in Vancouver if asked to.

That said, here they are in email:

1.  There are 2 camps H264 and VP8

2.  H264 and VP8 are both high quality and efficient video codecs,
there is no dispute

3.  H264 camp claims there is no IPR liability-free path.  Thus they
claim H264 has a more mature IPR model via MPEG than VP8.

4.  The IETF does not adjudicate on validity of any IPR claim, the
IETF only distributes information that is volunteered to the IETF.

5.  The 2 camps have irreconcilable legal and business assumptions,
thus the ideal of MTI cannot be achieved.

6.  Having both H264 and VP8 as MTI is not viable, because we know it
would cannot be true that both would be implemented.

7.  Voice-only WebRTC does have an MTI.  In the event that a common
video codec cannot be negotiated during video session setup, the
session SHOULD fall-back to voice-only session negotiation where there
is a MTI .

CB




> But I'm not the one who argued for this to be put on the agenda for 2 hours.
> The people who pushed for this to be on the agenda for 2 hours need to come
> forward and say why they believe this is a good use of our time. I haven't
> yet heard a VP8 proponent saying so.
>
> So far, apart from learning a bit more about configuring x264, I haven't
> seen much new information.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb