Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 8F7F01AE1F5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 h7CHzsW1V_gz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01D41ADF50 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rAMM8A24002199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:08:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rAMM89fe001155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:08:09 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:08:10 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO5tnjQ/uRvvW18UuSyXVNQo17lJov+PgAgAAJAYCAAAcbgIAAAbSAgAADmgCAAAOpAIAAAjOAgAAbQ4CAAAUBAIABbqLA
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:08:06 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EC023@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <528E69E2.9020208@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E0@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <CAOJ7v-151K2UoeMOhY-UUDzZwE=89qzbAQdrhQXYb72W+ZxQOw@mail.gmail.com> <3249225E-6709-4022-88CF-75020C1A4CEC@iii.ca> <CAOJ7v-3ruj91wd=1_TUevapamLxNJ93Ukd=VU+Gq7Q19YTvc+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3ruj91wd=1_TUevapamLxNJ93Ukd=VU+Gq7Q19YTvc+A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EC023FR712WXCHMBA11zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:08:24 -0000

No.

Some people, including myself, also want interoperability without transcoding with the existing deployed terminals for video codecs, i.e. so the gateway does not have to implement a transcoder. Those existing deployed terminals are essentially H.264.

Therefore from my viewpoint on the current proposals, any MTI decision that makes VP8 a sole MTI does nothing to support this.

That I assume is a technical viewpoint?

regards

Keith

________________________________
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
Sent: 21 November 2013 22:32
To: Cullen Jennings
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Even the proposal that recommended H.264 as MTI indicated that the technical merit of the currently proposed codecs is equivalent, and the fundamental question is IPR.
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-rtcweb-8.pdf

Put another way, if the alleged IPR issues associated with either H.264 or VP8 disappeared overnight, this discussion would be instantly over.


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:

On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com<mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:

> That said, I think the general understanding here is that this is no longer a technical decision.
>

I'll note that some people strongly disagree with this is not a technical decision but there are others who do think it is is no longer a technical decision.

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb