[rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.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 573D721F8A78 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 qpIjb885UAKi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AD321F8A7B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so1504512yen.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=psi8K62P2SLuYX0X5P+w2hRMHvS+VLMVlZkAVxvfAhw=; b=FyDJvXcvd2gVGfp3WOmkNOKawi2wEM81NeUSbFt/lL6am1A21bpw8KmR0pCDL356FW xBFxOEvOelydmyh2aHnTpOcoXg+fUtMMomPHUYX66yEOPjRWN6Dqv0SaClBUA4HeZaMe VyMDQ3nNByIVLDgpWKIFp/9vJXADDLXPILG/0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=psi8K62P2SLuYX0X5P+w2hRMHvS+VLMVlZkAVxvfAhw=; b=Y50A8hwXpUdAfB/3O3cXp8jUlXPqXiJwEEEiu6aouswYhnHNvni9ePzKX9y7upEYjt PIfNPnuRzpZUHYLm+F0Ibs9G7EPcfigs6pV9eFonFOGKG8AuHUdE3swywDT9Wa2POmHB fNI+scEjottqrvOiiTuU52vUFbX4ypK3o9YwICWIEgBcpoaNbz6drmdVoXmdTI7FHfS1 0rJWqR978n0gRcpSyJ/lpwOADaASwHeX/m3gXzLVAqCqk21nNLLRow6/FaZJVeNlUnvB nSKCqjEA4e9lcDfgE/MBtUarOnY/0/LY8RYd585s3/PUAh8dOb7A2qZLVZiSXA0tVuSK UeAw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.190.42 with SMTP id gn10mr5548105pbc.94.1333023335149; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.189.197 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:15:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOHm=4snSTbVKpGvuktC+wMYKBu1hvBkwippAQKbA9H1KdFo6w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1cb265e71b504bc60ae18
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4ieZJnpnLnrnIwuR2YzYxaby1zX4+xHYjQOY+Sww+gTceVX6eO2KndnQTancet/xMUx0Y
Subject: [rtcweb] Proposal for H.263 baseline codec
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:15:37 -0000

In today's meeting I made a plea for a mandatory baseline codec that is
approachable to the small developer without the cost and IPR risks of
either H.264 or VP8.

I believe that some sort of baseline codec is required to jump start the
protocol. It's OK if this isn't the best possible codec. Market forces will
assure that commercial implementations converge on a higher quality when
the market requires it.

While I proposed today that H.261 could serve as a baseline, we know this
would be "extremely basic". In other words, it might not pass the "good
enough to use" test required for a successful launch.

Stephane and several others suggested H.263 as an alternative during the
after-meeting chat. While it is not as IPR-safe a choice as H.261, it is
relatively mature and the known challenges have generally failed.
Implementations are reasonably available and should make it possible for
smaller implementers, students, and hobbyists to play ball. It's not all
that network efficient and is outright piggy at higher resolutions, but it
probably works "well enough to use."

So I propose we set H.263 as the baseline ( I expect a bit of profiling may
be necessary to further qualify the baseline) and run with that for now. If
the situation changes, we can always replace it before final publication.
--
Dean