Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 20 November 2013 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 914751AE36A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 DPhWSFjtYihl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEF81AE363 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id rq2so3059242pbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=rdaw4N77r9mHbyFWKWDuT93QW3++JUpWdDezst6vARU=; b=d9brpKGjrtJ0mJK2uZ+pbSemg5cfe3Msz+SjZERnuTxh8qo/k4Ndg70KJMAUIow2sZ 7jZCvr7NzCyExd3K62FDlFxlHUWPbzgL+85/PlUCTQPaVUP7z2ESszyF1wdHMKZfAEML 53GQebe4O6pxBfn/WS4w524xeklaGZyEp6WgdO4sEvemqEIvYh8S65CBpWnVesNBKTIp NjZ8zbqDR3PgEvuPCU0+DxwnlQ7gLlrsFL2+Z4QI0EGcQnoC3tQRNcCfMN6J5hGUKIq6 omxUnH+Y/Y7o2RbWWiQOOetWge5Y1CLXLLZXwr1q9BxIGWP9tCNb2MGm6aKGy9A+rmnR QGSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEfHUVffRuUAxiRmWK/Iwq/AI/F4D6TwITTC3mA1SygOykKqgEH4i+dHw+oA+zUJl2K4vb
X-Received: by 10.68.189.101 with SMTP id gh5mr29692027pbc.39.1384930345580; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.0.59] ([12.208.14.10]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl8sm30114608pad.17.2013.11.19.22.52.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528C5C22.5090505@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:18 -0800
From: Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com>, <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>, <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com>, <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030004000103020406060801"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:52:33 -0000

Bernard,

Numerous stakeholders have already stated that they cannot use Cisco's 
offering (including some noteworthy open-source operating systems) so 
this is a non-starter.

No one is arguing that implementing H.261 is great. We're just saying 
that it's better than the alternative (no video).

Gili

On 19/11/2013 7:27 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Maik said:
>
> > - implementing the codec of "the other codec camp" is more desirable
> > - the end-users will appreciate spuriously failing video calls
>
> [BA] The above are not the only choices, because it is not necessary 
> to "implement the codec of the other codec camp" in order to provide 
> support for it.  The Cisco offer of an H.264 encoder/decoder is only 
> one example.
>
> So really, the choice is more between "support codec extensibility and 
> allow 'the other codec camp' to take risks they are comfortable with" 
> and "implement an inferior codec no one wants".
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb