Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 CE6F711E80F5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.675, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 evtEMbK4ME2w for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F63921F99FD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:22:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-95-52862e3e0a53
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D7.D6.27941.E3E26825; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:22:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:22:54 +0100
Message-ID: <52862E34.50309@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:22:44 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <5e5c891jdb3sam85hb1485ru3r5hj0pclg@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAGgHUiRW=1MLNs+z-2CgMXJgeqZkpZuNQxWMzJphO2h9yKHbwg@mail.gmail.com> <528626F7.1050101@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <528626F7.1050101@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3Vtdery3I4McXZoszN/+zW6z9187u wOTxZMJ0do8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGW8WrqeqeAcX8X1nkXsDYxPuLsYOTkkBEwk Fvz5zwJhi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4AijxL8rPSwQznJGidMH1rCBVPEKaEoc2L+IGcRmEVCV6Dsx lRXEZhOwkLj5oxGsRlQgWOL8q8XsEPWCEidnPgEaxMEhImAu8ehuJYgpLGApceG4CcT4S4wS W25NByvhFDCQmNKhD2JKCIhL9DQGgQxhFtCTmHK1hRHClpdo3job7AAhAW2JhqYO1gmMgrOQ 7JqFpGUWkpYFjMyrGDmKU4uTctONDDYxAgPy4JbfFjsYL/+1OcQozcGiJM778a1zkJBAemJJ anZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbG7c1CGl/+32jmS1T9sO79DIfJ5yMF1dTKHSVEZza5O4il VwVZH1/RlZXFKvE7p3l+tOyltpnf/Q6F67SrH/XQCXIU/MR0TCpJ+9SGyw+es893VYnpWVZ1 63HtpV+75tSq9kk/9/qfpj7z+kyRb6lH3aKt2AtOxp/Rcu6ZEXy++HmZ08Iz0UlKLMUZiYZa zEXFiQBlH46+FgIAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:23:02 -0000

On 2013-11-15 14:51, cowwoc wrote:
> 
> +1 with the caveat that I think option 6 should simply state:
> 
> 6. All entities MUST support a specific IPR-expired codec (to be decided
> at a later meeting) such as H.261 or Theora.
> 
> The goal remains the same. I don't think people voting for this option
> need to know up-front what the specific codec would be so long as we
> explain that we'll try to pick the best codec possible. Correct me if
> I'm wrong :)

I would believe there are a lot of people in the WG that consider the
IPR risks between Theora and H.261 significantly different. I realize
that list each alternative code will result in a significantly longer
list, but at the same time, I don't see how the above MUST statement
allows the WG to conclude on video codec selection. If we would agree on
the above, we would spend another year discussing our IPR beliefs around
various codecs. From that perspective I do think there is better to have
the individuals in the WG form their own opinions regarding an explicit
proposal.

At the same time, I would recommend that the people who believe in the
above option, coming to an agreement now, before the process starts, on
which codec alternative they want to support. This is after all also a
question of how to best trade IPR risk vs capability and quality per
bit. Thus improving that options chance.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------