Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs

"Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <> Wed, 30 October 2013 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA4321E812F for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.465
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0WJNT-ehPy9 for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D8F11E818B for <>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=8757; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383158025; x=1384367625; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AyJCz8IK9o7MJfBDYtvyBPuCzwnVsqagw5NUIHtZgLw=; b=DGLwDfDy3qW/Ff3WJy4B0bWLhKOi5Oy5ilmS5ersCODkoptr0Q1O50lh BgRZu7PBILv0QzBOZBnml4TV2CsaZzJzswSa5SA/bXYIvw4Im+Yn6lD1L Zqh/s8zf0EtHGWje94kSn+5ZDmdt6DVS3Qmi6esEaGSQfTLZap4RZi2hD A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,603,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="278634747"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2013 18:33:45 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9UIXjsB025617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:33:45 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([fe80::200:5efe:]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:33:45 -0500
From: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <>
To: Leon Geyser <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs
Thread-Index: AQHO1Z6QKQxeI4sckkKmXOLHp/+Z/g==
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:33:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FCBEDCB500188C488DA30C874B94F80E1C018E19xmbrcdx03ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On the topic of MTI video codecs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:33:54 -0000

" As long as there are ports of the source code and automatic build scripts contributed as part of the open source, we do not see difficulties in adding additional platforms."

On Oct 30, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Leon Geyser <<>> wrote:

Unfortunately like Jonathan pointed out H.264 will only be able to be used royalty free on certain(most popular) platforms.
To be able to avoid negotiation failure we need a MTI codec that every potential now/future browser would be able to implement freely.
I like what Cisco did, but the solution seems a bit half-baked.

On 30 October 2013 19:55, Adam Roach <<>> wrote:
As Jonathan mentioned earlier, this morning Cisco announced that it will be open sourcing an H.264 implementation as well as gratis binary modules compiled from that source and hosted by Cisco for download. Mozilla will be modifying Firefox to support H.264 by downloading Cisco's binary module.

In previous discussions of which codec should be MTI, Mozilla has stated that it could not accept H.264 as MTI, primarily because we could not deliver H.264 in Firefox. That obstacle is now removed, and we can accept either codec as MTI.

Mozilla intends to continue supporting VP8 in WebRTC, but we will also support H.264.

rtcweb mailing list<>

rtcweb mailing list<>