IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 01 November 2013 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D243D21E80E1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7A7QUQNukqd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22a.google.com (mail-ve0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E3D21E80B7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id oy12so4756veb.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dJpGZ6ql4aSS2K4eFZfxC5ggKhmeSeV/V2OkDYVrHpE=; b=H7HOIkPxaqCDamH1rvc4jYX7+W0Odn4b1CWnSSMYkLYPTNwUb2HZ/DdWAgEDD9raHD +XSJqapnaqowgDJn6juS9KGwtpqZepLGfi2cgMZcgQeqstorcAyRWUc8Slu6WR5Pq17F DjxCgiivbk5tlueKvx/Q+Xhd7kECgj6Am60iUDrvaIsZkT151h4ImH0GYJqKPfF07vZb nsdWysdJGnUyD0SXE1iETGezCwx+WmfOrJQqRql59gZd0BYUfX6YjsVJ/FFjvuaWLAct 9vj7MrTEhBgQU+f47m71IClm9porTiLwwZEYw1hnB35gkAVvnmHtj7BDTALdeQDmrwnQ cl5w==
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=dJpGZ6ql4aSS2K4eFZfxC5ggKhmeSeV/V2OkDYVrHpE=; b=ACJSqd1BfqZDuj4uiYzfiRMSPOxZ5A2P0fa/VdZCTqwysdAwG5nB+8s0fySRvwVCX4 epeoQEtb/xbiiivDqGJOEDQ6rNLaDK1B5JktT7GTIcXCqAeHzjUFwIzlugQ9TCtlYyRK rJTXiKNNvhOB6c7wQbjrEPPfufKaGt3/E0jn9OkHG4i9KEVjZCZwao62VI1XTulenszj rBWzoG3OSEQjs9TrrykBlmYL8rfz5UmlJMTLwb9IcHutQ5b7DL+tUkp+faX4uTJePNFM nxaptvuNn6EKxpi6NV/r78GKMOelFPhC9HrsXuZoj2XUkp5QgfkNIT4AcE4zCiaD1n1d Hwjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlRmo5Mr2QTOOLvpCR0SxtDENO5poLl1C/ocdej/pgPxMaqj/TIACZc/2j6ZXCmCSABi4Gj69Td+BaEr13RQTNJJ8upTuqingEgxfF+J01eNjisCftO21eM9o8wy6pyvI3+MmoSwe2BVg0j2V7KEz0P/5tcks2h/TGt5COQvFJ96P9m57cwDMA57MAD5RAvXIwYZ/yG
X-Received: by 10.52.52.137 with SMTP id t9mr2643910vdo.22.1383336860522; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52740478.6030109@nostrum.com>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <52740478.6030109@nostrum.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:13:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2+_4QZwc8vEtdwVDWSP-d-z+ggB0u+VM6WnA=f-k4-XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0122f65e2d458304ea2336a2"
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:14:21 -0000

I also want to reiterate that having a MTI codec means Mandatory To
Implement.

That means, that should we decide to go down the H.264 path, Firefox and
others will be forced to support this Rube Goldberg machine for obtaining
H.264 for an indeterminate amount of time, long after WebRTC has moved on
to prefer other codecs.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>  On 10/31/13 13:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>  We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open source H.264
> codec available and usable by the community. We look forward to seeing the
> result of this effort.
>
>  Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully open,
> high-quality video codec that you can download, compile for your platform,
> include in your binary, distribute and put into production today - is the
> best choice of a Mandatory to Implement video codec for the WebRTC effort.
>
>
> I agree with Harald that VP8 is a better codec than H.264 baseline in a
> number of important ways.
>
> But I also want to reiterate that having an MTI codec has never been about
> choosing the best codec or even a good codec. It's about choosing an
> emergency backup codec-of-last-resort. It's about having one single
> mandated codec that everyone has in their back pocket in case nothing else
> works.
>
> The core of RTCWEB is about session *negotiation*. Endpoints will
> negotiate the best codec they have in common. Once the next generation of
> codecs come out, this "best codec in common" will only be the MTI if they
> were about to fail anyway.
>
> So it doesn't have to be good.
>
> It just has to be better than failure.
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email