Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@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 A67A121E81DD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:51:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.217, 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 B9Ga4BrrS8KJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210ED21E8092 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:51:53 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-01-52849d38221e
Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 48.BB.27941.83D94825; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:51:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.80] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:51:51 +0100
Message-ID: <52849D37.9030601@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:51:51 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra7F3JYgg71HVCzW/mtnd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxsztiQVtAhWPHx5jb2C8ydPFyMkhIWAi8XtSByOELSZx4d56 ti5GLg4hgSOMEk/+bmWCcNYwSsy/9p0NpIpXQFvi1PR+li5GDg4WAVWJM9sTQMJsAhYSW27d ZwGxRQWiJDZsv8ACUS4ocXLmEzBbREBU4vXjaawgrcIClhIXjpuAhIWAJrbvnAA2nVNAR2LL 68VsEPdISmx50c4OYjML6ElMudrCCGHLS2x/O4cZpnf5sxaWCYyCs5Bsm4WkZRaSlgWMzKsY OYpTi5Ny040MNjECg+/glt8WOxgv/7U5xCjNwaIkzvvxrXOQkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrx IUYmDk6pBkZv447mbQIiv6ecPc08a2O/q2LNxjPV//MvFJy55n2P935+QlBf5AR1zsL8ny61 5xo/ejedu/z9YYiM079Q7i3TThcVLHqwjXlx2WSmk64fHOcdXHl62eqv919+XhjQ1nKF4+xU 8YeKhvE5gouMM36KfGc5Gtk8Y+av3Y63dQt+RlorTjRf/W+9EktxRqKhFnNRcSIAgTQfggwC AAA=
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:51:59 -0000

Hi,

with respect to what types of alternatives will be considered, at this
point I would prefer to focus on agreeing on a MUST-level statement.
Once we do that, we can consider SHOULD-level statements if the group
considers them important.

Additionally, there have been a few suggestions related to combining
several options. For example, 4+5 or 5+6. I would suggest to keep these
combinations separate and not to treat them as completely new options
for clarity. Such separation would help us decide among atomic options
(which is already difficult enough) as opposed to deciding among
more-complex combinations.

In any case, these are just my preferences. As usual, I will let the
chairs manage this process with the inputs of the WG.

Cheers

Gonzalo

On 13/11/2013 10:23 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
> 
> As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection of the
> MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we have on
> the table:
> 
>  1. All entities MUST support H.264
>  2. All entities MUST support VP8
>  3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>  4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>  5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>  6. All entities MUST support H.261
>  7. There is no MTI video codec
> 
> If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
> above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
> that point, the chairs will be listing all the received alternatives and
> proposing a process to select one among them.
> 
> Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not need to
> write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
> document regarding video codecs.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> Responsible AD for this WG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>