Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 11/21/2013 04:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Agreed.
> >
> > To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
> > support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
> > will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
> >
> > -Ekr
>
> (I apparently replied only to Ekr, and not the whole list originally)
>
> None, but that's not the point.  Firefox is a special case for which VP8
> is not considered a legal liability (by Mozilla) and they can be
> satisfied, for the most part, by Cisco's proposal with OpenH264 as a
> downloadable plugin/module.
>
> So, this doesn't open up anything for Firefox that it is not already
> planning to handle.
>
> What it does open up is for, say, a small firm that cannot afford H.264
> licensing, and cannot make use of Cisco's binary plugin for legal or
> technical reasons, and can only implement VP8 and H.261, and, say, a
> device whose manufacturers do not wish to implement VP8 for perceived
> IPR risk but already license H.264.
>
> Both cases above have an H.261 implementation that will allow mutual
> video, even though they do not share a common high-end codec
> implementation.
>
> There are cases outside of browsers that are interested in rtcweb, after
> all.


Which of those cases are going to want to not talk to browsers?

Which browsers want to do H.261?

-Ekr


>  --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>