Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 96D491AE2DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:00:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 ePedT9VkmoDi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2171AE38B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id y10so366550wgg.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:00:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Mf8KFjld4RE8W2e4UcGGvetLh86P2m9FQBApi8nGDHI=; b=RaFCv4J2aBy6I7KMO75qZKeKNj+f+6GmWn9VAZOAoFDakM/a8kYtD8y72b4L6Au2By gnZ5mno5K7XofaqOGg1p9VkWgGjL+tPUJr3Vzggir4K5XDFeZsxJK1tEmw3kTIaCAH13 09gbvGG+qnYrD4cWQtB6Cdib5n/bTh/4uyErehO5FJPCuJrxJWs2/SqdDPAuuYh/hRV0 Of+R3+nzdhSWAYV/GmfvqPopEXMFd36zdvPYJjQB9hn6F/DJohae+DG5ZwfCpnk9n9O0 gOebyvMXltJn7LMirqtLmLpWPl+g4Mggk69xOiI6mz0gOwrs1gAOGp/rS60PhxZe+g73 rv1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnR1jN2gqaiaFDvdCvYnMr0ceefw238hq3QL0FAz+bWGHIf2K+NqXZOxUeM2S+CKVXn30oA
X-Received: by 10.194.20.65 with SMTP id l1mr7480008wje.4.1385071220965; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:00:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:101:8003:300:481b:90de:7d1a:71eb]
In-Reply-To: <528E80FB.4080802@librevideo.org>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <528E80FB.4080802@librevideo.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN0xcwO+0vBkmH9Mj3dWxKSfqu0pigH=-=c1sO85+QzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4512a21d7d6004ebb70625
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:00:30 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <
basilgohar@librevideo.org>; 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
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>