Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephan,

yes, the wording you suggest captures the idea in a clearer way.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 14/11/2013 12:17 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Gonzalo, 
> Re your point 5.: ³either or² is often understood as an exclusive or.  I
> don¹t think anyone proposed that.  A better way to express 5. would be
> ³All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8².
> Stephan
> 
> On 11.13.2013, 12:23 , "Gonzalo Camarillo"
> <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>