Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <aallen@blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB21A6EE0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYZFMQZY2RMq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901081A6EDE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 21:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct107cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.207]) by mhs214cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 08 Dec 2014 00:15:46 -0500
Received: from XCT104CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.204) by XCT107CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 00:15:45 -0500
Received: from XMB122CNC.rim.net ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by XCT104CNC.rim.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 00:15:45 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AQHQDyew2za5sQikUES+QP80tOoCX5x+j7gAgAAgMwCAAChyAIAADcQAgAAeaYCAAKv2gIAB/3mAgAAErgCAAFtGa4ACm1OA///lNVA=
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 05:15:44 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998956E@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <547F60A8.3080302@alvestrand.no> <27F838F1-326D-48BD-B553-6FE993E5C34F@apple.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF354465@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <547FA924.3000504@mozilla.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35455C@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <548052E7.1050007@alvestrand.no> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF359C76@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <548203E2.90602@nostrum.com> <20141206054017.5955730.89689.3585@blackberry.com> <CAD5OKxtnQDkKQOohVFdQ1n5+2GU7rjHNjsUH4r3Scv_kc7y6UA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtnQDkKQOohVFdQ1n5+2GU7rjHNjsUH4r3Scv_kc7y6UA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.252]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998956EXMB122CNCrimnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/PTB-jiL3ffSpvtxRcNj43A3mms4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 05:15:54 -0000

Roman

We only need to agree on a single video MTI to ensure interoperability between RTCweb compliant entities. H.264 also gives you interoperability with much of the already established legacy video infrastructure base out there (Video over LTE, video conferencing, etc) as well.

Having two MTIs simply increases the complexity, cost and the litigation risk for everyone that actually has to implement both MTIs with little if any additional benefit.

Andrew

From: Roman Shpount [mailto:roman@telurix.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:29 AM
To: Andrew Allen
Cc: Adam Roach; Gaelle Martin-Cocher; Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com<mailto:aallen@blackberry.com>> wrote:

As Harald already admitted this entire debate has been about companies business interests and not technical merits. There is ABSOLUTELY NO TECHNICAL REASON to have 2 MTI video codecs. This has been company business interest from the start.

This is disingenuous at the very least: There is a great technical reason to have 2 or more MTI video codecs -- interoperability.  If it weren't for the IPR related issues, I would still vote for VP8 and H.264 as MTI, since these are the two wide spread codecs that enable video calls of acceptable quality.
_____________
Roman Shpount