Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Actually O/A model is asymmetric by default. All you specify in SDP are the
codecs you can receive. You are allowed to send a stream in any codec
remote side supports. So if both sides state that they support codecs X and
Y in SDP, one side can send X in one direction and another side can send Y
in opposite.

_____________
Roman Shpount


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM, tim panton <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Surely this flies in the face of the whole O/A model, which imposes a sort
> of symmetry on the endpoints ?
> (Unless there is some arcane SDP FRACK at play here).
>
> T.
>
>
> On 22 Nov 2013, at 08:24, Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> I think this has value. It might bring apple and Microsoft to the table,
> since decoding-only is often the less patent-affecting part.
>
> Silvia.
> On 22 Nov 2013 02:24, Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 2013/11/22 5:02, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
>>
>>> I in no way intended to suggest  a specific implementation of a video
>>> codec.  My question was around whether we are voting on requiring decoders
>>> (my assumption) or both encoders and decoders
>>>
>>
>> My understanding is that all the proposals in each instance mean "both
>> encoder and decoder". So as an example, a proposal of "MUST implement both
>> VP8 and H.264" means "MUST implement both VP8 encoder and decoder, and
>> H.264 encoder and decoder".
>>
>> Your question brings up other choices. For example, interoperability
>> would be satisfied by something like "MUST implement both VP8 and H.264
>> decoders, and MUST implement at least one of VP8 and H.264 encoders".
>>
>> One condition for this to work is the possibility of asymmetric
>> communication, i.e. if side A implemented only a VP8 encoder, and side B
>> only implemented a H.264 encoder, then traffic A->B would be VP8, whereas
>> traffic B->A would be H.264. I don't know the in's and out's of the
>> negotiation and protocol machinery to confirm or deny that this is possible.
>>
>> Choices like the one above definitely open new horizons for Eric's
>> selection generator. But frankly speaking, except for the specific choice
>> of "MUST implement both VP8 and H.264 decoders, and MUST implement at least
>> one of VP8 and H.264 encoders", which is less onerous than "MUST implement
>> both VP8 and H.264", but still interoperable, I don't see any choices with
>> different requirements for encoders and decoders that would make sense.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Basil Mohamed Gohar [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 01:56 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>>>
>>> On 11/21/2013 02:31 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a new comer, so just a brief intro: I have a background developing
>>>> real time video codecs for embedded devices so I'm in a position to comment
>>>> at a technical level within this group
>>>>
>>>> For clarity purposes the proposed alternatives in Magnus' email on nov
>>>> 18th; are we strictly speaking about decoders?  Historically mandatory
>>>> requirements are they relate to video compatibility define just the
>>>> decoders.  Obviously if there is only a single mandatory video decoder this
>>>> implies a mandatory encoder, however in the case where there are 2
>>>> mandatory decoders only a single encoder is technically required.
>>>>
>>>> Clarifying this is fairly important because in the case of both h264
>>>> and vp8 (and in the future vp9 and h265) the decoder complexity is fairly
>>>> low and hardware acceleration is not critical but in the case of the
>>>> encoders where the complexity can be 3x or worse, hardware acceleration
>>>> becomes increasingly important
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is being specified as MTI is a format, and not a specific
>>> implementation.  So, MTI will not take the form of "OpenH264" or
>>> "libvpx", but rather, "H.264 Constrainted Baseline Profile" or "VP8".
>>>
>>> The same was done for the MTI audio codec, which is Opus, not *libopus*,
>>> which is one specific implementation of the codec.
>>>
>>> There was a suggestion that the WG also offer a reference implementation
>>> of the MTI codec choice, but that seems like it won't happen, nor is it
>>> really the purpose of the WG to do so.  We are picking from
>>> already-existing and implemented formats in the first place.
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>