IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <miconda@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 4901911E810D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:30:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 OPrRq86qNOFK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:30:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5572B21E80B3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:30:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b13so4669751wgh.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:30:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sgRb4U/9/WdL+lGVsW+rAOZZfvwI3kmPq31xUczvj/g=; b=XuBTUlLwf7E1cSFybm8u37ohN2LUTDaAkiXc4BoQ0og2CPq3EOXzY+m8hCvOol7oE6 C2y2oV65jnvTAfJ2DlINQcnds1NAPaWbxRJA+RxjXnoQMt6YYwT98X2sOuPanZLbnFjC bC3uW3t7M1Ljfk3RFAQtL7d3iIBBZ84yz3bbOXQuW8nzB6x1FjvSWci4p9+EEsNwR+je qXIoUk77OPL7HWosgH6nEaKCCPnWcWG3EhRwnc1kgI2L4QUqbuZDxrgGIQqYzsYrWjcE 0YzcKCSIaBPgDVTd4DUiFrYJoGJD7fLoEJTeJQYTx0Wo5rqfNlWowQmzz4XOBDdGygiR /ODg==
X-Received: by 10.180.73.231 with SMTP id o7mr1627308wiv.21.1383730252327; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.asipto.com. [213.133.111.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fr4sm22658379wib.0.2013.11.06.01.30.50 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <527A0C4D.7020707@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:30:53 +0100
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com> <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com> <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A108AAB@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <CAMwTW+g+iHWCkoUonjYFi6OrSNcSQZX2X4GtKG5Ae4Ubzv0LtA@mail.gmail.com> <A869F270-C9B9-48EE-9A71-75BA9F2684EC@apple.com> <527A06EF.2070007@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <527A06EF.2070007@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miconda@gmail.com
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 09:30:57 -0000

On 11/6/13 10:07 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>
>     I don't understand why we are playing these semantic games.
>
>     If we mandate multiple codecs as MTI, and "something goes wrong" 
> (be it an IPR issue, security issue, etc)
As it stands today, there are well known IPR issues with h264. Cisco's 
move doesn't lift them.

So why to choose it if falls under the rules to remove it?

With both on board, I still expect the majority of the apps will 
implement only the most convenient for them, eventually expecting the 
other to have both. Then responsibility is getting divided, like "it's 
not _only_ my fault", blaming the other end point as well.

Daniel

> we have the ability remove that codec from MTI without breaking 
> interoperability. If we only mandate a single codec as MTI, there is 
> no such ability.
>
> Gili
>
> On 06/11/2013 3:53 AM, David Singer wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 9:53 , bryandonnovan@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> "real IPR issue" :  ability to compile and distribute an h.264 codec 
>>> without getting a license and paying royalties.
>>>
>>> "not real IPR issue" : claims made against Opus by Qualcomm and Huawei
>> where does Nokia's statement fall, in your opinion?
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Define "real IPR issue".
>>>
>>> Markus
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Trainings - Berlin, Nov 25-28
   - more details about Kamailio trainings at http://www.asipto.com -

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email