[rtcweb] Codec extensibility (Re: Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video))

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 03/16/2013 10:17 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 15:18, "Leon Geyser" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion there really is a need for a MTI video codec for interoperability between browsers.
>>
>> Here are some scenarios on MTI decisions:
>>
>> -- Decide on no MTI codec:
>> This would split the browers in two sides.
> [BA] No. It just removes the stick that each side can use to beat the other side.  The need for interoperability still remains, and most likely will either be addressed by the marketplace choosing one over the other decisively, or if deployment is split, by support for (limited) codec extensibility.
An interesting angle on codec extensibility is what license agreement 
one needs in order to deploy a codec extension; it would seem natural to 
assume that one would need an MPEG-LA license in order to deploy a H.264 
codec extension.

An API for access to raw incoming/outgoing data, and for registering a 
codec in the negotiation machinery, would need to be defined, but 
doesn't seem extremely complicated to do (although the details will take 
some care). But the license issue might mean that the first plug-in 
codecs developed would be the ASCII codec, the H.261 codec and VP8.