Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 D5C7C21E80F8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:21:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 G7hsbBjIPQtv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9441C11E8133 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w6so6874267lbh.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8q/tk4XdE3D7TNYSlP3TzloatHQ9HIYsED+WPayICuU=; b=aQUxyJ3T62GKgZ9ZFwE4aCLf8tVkwGxV+4auJeTA0wAxaz8i6DZnMddojfQ19TA2Ri mVRw3keUKglTNkhk+tXNFNOSAqYGY8bqbXnEU7b3mIh+G3T2e6eKKSFtHmBLIGKOvseg /15uRZAaE62OETioE9LiPoqXoA3hfC68VFP2DRXocboeLJ653RyTq+oy0dD7St4KpjDR x/NqkS/3/11nxkjmVVkBgZmBYdn4Eg6+xhselSlB+4JhBP9HfWnty9+4Xyaf/7uAGrvu REgEsQRrYtDRA/6uvzMjnYdNYJasFQlHNl4/IvA5RmwTfAQdkDoRbQnF+5o17xOl6YwJ EcbA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.143.138 with SMTP id se10mr9536841lbb.26.1383672111188; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <CAGgHUiS326saNJ7-0RmVQXYaJBW6Qmo=r9-oYmGiUzP-sDTcXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:21:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiR3e5fQTC+qOUqP7imnQ4w8g_dwRR9gsU2rAiKp9FMiUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182830ac4fc204ea7144d8
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:21:54 -0000

>>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
>>
>
>