Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

>>Any implementation can refuse to implement any MTI, whether it is 1 or 2.
I see more good than harm by mandating both.
Mandating 2 is just as good as mandating 0. I just don't get the logic of
mandating 2.

>>We mandated Opus and G.711, right? Did anyone complain that 2 MTIs would
increase the chance of negotiation failure?
I disagree. Completely different situation. G.711 is there, because it has
NO IPR issues and can be implemented in like +/- 10 lines of code. Nice for
testing and has NO IPR issues. Both are royalty free codecs btw.

On 5 November 2013 19:12, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzanaty@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Any implementation can refuse to implement any MTI, whether it is 1 or
> 2. I see more good than harm by mandating both. We mandated Opus and G.711,
> right? Did anyone complain that 2 MTIs would increase the chance of
> negotiation failure? Forcing a binary MTI decision suggests an intent to
> let one live and kill the other. Live and let live...
>
>  Mo
>
>
>   On 11/5/13, 11:33 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    Both can't be made mandatory, because some parties would refuse to
> implement VP8 or H.264. This will cause negotiation failure anyway.
>  What about a 3?
> 3. If you support a codec with expired IPR(such as H.261) as the mandatory
> to implement codec or are
> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>
>  None should only be an option if 1/2/3 can't be satisfied. Actually None
> shouldn't even be an option, because it won't solve negotiation failure.
>
>
> On 5 November 2013 16:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that making both VP8 and H264 MTI might be a good option
>> for WebRTC in terms of maximizing interoperability and would be a better
>> decision coming out of this IETF meeting than no decision at all.
>>
>> Can we have some clarification as to whether any consensus call during
>> this week's meeting will include this option?
>>
>> Previously it was stated that the questions to be asked would be:
>>
>> 1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>> 2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>>
>> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>