[rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Sat, 16 March 2013 19:14 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 C03B821F8788 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 4bUcfpxDCM+9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4771821F8780 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id gm6so3675981lbb.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=xe6Xzq2kxOuHLWwbX+KsOWv3OVYw1+J1QMJ8fOl2f64=; b=k3p0aVWlQ97Th4j3zRITdWXMmGA999Yb0LVO2f+xlAfr5OWuQyK0JRsDYcRr1atwu5 v3S/eCmAPBHiFepqhVNhE+wP1FMYkQcoAPi1lM+UvvF0JvmZ3Gk4kF6gAPL03S0pOIFc du4/G6d8X5SW9/5YCH1UrrqMYTmfIfQKYz4I0fjlp0saYRVbK7g4q6ULm26PhxEILY2L dLNSre9XuNINooJ8WfgL7s4ieeMMZKq2pBIZseBte6SVuxTnxrJc4Ps9BB8EjaQMRwZX yR35IasgjeUkEB0c83ETcKPEo2chqtJ1kUdD3PxVMCdxm1Zvbv72+FFRwSVvNSiDE3CP 79GA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.10.102 with SMTP id h6mr4076353lbb.75.1363461259114; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.2.76 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:14:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiQPNSOEtffncjXMozxPM70hL9N++sM=RkC6qVFGSFNREA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe305003c17c04d80f9052
Subject: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
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: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:18:45 -0000

In my opinion there really is a need for a MTI video codec for
interoperability between browsers.

Here are some scenarios on MTI decisions:

-- Decide on no MTI codec:
This would split the browers in two sides.
Those who support VP8 and those who support H.264. The only way these would
be able to communicate with each other is by using a a transcoding server
between the two browsers. (I don't know what the cost impact would be.)
Or
No video stream is sent when two incompatible browsers communicate. Just
audio. Not ideal.

-- Decide on H.264:
This really is not an option unless it can be royalty free with no strings
attached. Only a few browser vendors would be able to implement H.264. This
will also result in: No video stream is sent when to incompatible browsers
communicate. Just audio. Not ideal.

--Decide on VP8:
This would be the ideal choice and there shouldn't be a reason not to
implement VP8.

--Decide on H.261:
This might be old tech, but browsers might be able to use H.261 without
paying any royalties and without transcoding.
The codec can be used at 352x288 resolution from 64Kbit/s to 2Mbit/s
Remember this is just a fallback for interoperability. Browsers will still
implement VP8 and/or H.264.

Here are some examples of what might happen:
Firefox/Chrome/Opera to Firefox/Chrome/Opera: VP8
Safari/IE to Safari/IE : H.264
Firefox/Chrome/Opera to Safari/IE : H.261 fallback

Atleast there is video instead of no Video. Any opinions?