IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9A01AE0AA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:22:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuZ5dES270Xb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E37C1AE0A9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn9so7860108wib.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:21:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DcwdBwW2jC8VpuvjmhO08hLuknVjptBiRwxPs4dIB14=; b=IXbszOqz9SFif2+3cmDSm1wcFFsDWGg4nGrNc7Rt1+PMC+vgo7b8jZAqfgIZ7xy/rE n0sfJJNHpLeyyRkO6u1wWcCsoIcPjEmYlV9SoRHNEFZYD9HYZjpLT3HbuCMSC4FZcbV5 f1dWn6RCmJXwDSUHnboM3XdRJ4j+ig93epuiFFigw27otq5KxtAL4KU6T8SysFOevueQ RzzOF5TiUH24Vl6jyaYZztBEAxBXKGklT3SSv2czzODry9LxHyMNDUPCOy2whOiBOG7C uRS7OuQ1gcCBlmN0tDBtzq/KRdwp1zjcw0tsVHgPilLgSrzyNMxH2BBoLZBwPX2lVfUQ G2eg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.21.166 with SMTP id w6mr661411wie.31.1389331304950; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:21:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.109.163 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:21:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fEb2YTyCgFrqtArQR6Q6hipwV-NYUxkoiANDFwf1-wWtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fEb2YTyCgFrqtArQR6Q6hipwV-NYUxkoiANDFwf1-wWtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:21:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGSKJ0F_s82H0pqFgq5chj1HCXucqoM1HcO0srMRTMhQ4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b6d9a86e82e9d04ef96e668"
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 10 Jan 2014 05:22:08 -0000

Hello Chairs,

Please find my inputs on the options.


   1.

   All entities MUST support H.264
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *YES.*
      2.

   All entities MUST support VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Lack of broad support with the existing install base.*
      3.

   All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Results in interoperable solutions with existing install base
      as well as future H264 and VP8 install bases.*
      4.

   Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at
   least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable*
      5.

   All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Results in non inter-operable solutions or more sadly silo'ed
      communications.*
      6.

   All entities MUST support H.261
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *WebRTC MUST attempt to deliver high quality Video experiences.*
      7.

   There is no MTI video codec
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not result in interoperability. *
      8.

   All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
   one of H.264 and VP8:
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: * NO*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:  *Ends up in non-interoperability or poor video quality because
      of H.261*.
      9.

   All entities MUST support Theora: *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not result in inter-operable solution. Very low install
      base.*
      10.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: "*Atleast" ends up causing inter-operable complications and
      that is bad for WebRTC. H261 becomes Lowest Common Denominator and kills
      high quality video experience for the end-users. It would be worse, if
      end-users turn of video altogether rather than experiencing poor video
      quality *
      11.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263} *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: * "Atleast" ends up causing inter-operable complications.
      More-over H.263 will not live up to the high quality video experience, if
      selected as the common codec. *
      12.

   All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
   support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:
      13.

   All entities MUST support H.263
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Poor video quality, not good for WebRTC.*
      14.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}: *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Will not produce interoperability with the install base.*
      15.

   All entities MUST support decoding using Theora. *NO.*
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them:  *Poor interoperability with the existing install base. *
      16.

   All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: *Quality not sufficient for commercial use.*



On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>wrote:

> My views:
>
>
>    1.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.264
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *YES.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       2.
>
>    All entities MUST support VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Unlicensable IPR claims; high risk of trolls coming out of
>       the wordworks; lack of interoperability with install base of H.264 based
>       systems; lack of current broad support for hardware acceleration*
>       3.
>
>    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:* I put this down as acceptable, as opposed to NO, because I
>       believe that primary problem here is what the browsers implement. As I am
>       not a browser vendor, it would be OK by me if they all decide to implement
>       both - since it means H.264 is there, ensuring interoperability. In other
>       words, I dont think rtcweb *compliance* is meaningful outside of the
>       browser - only interoperability with webRTC. Thus I view #3 and #4 as
>       effectively identical.*
>       4.
>
>    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support
>    at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Acceptable.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       5.
>
>    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Will not result in interoperability.*
>       6.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.261
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Quality nowhere near acceptable for commercial application.*
>       7.
>
>    There is no MTI video codec
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Will not result in interoperability. *
>       8.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
>    one of H.264 and VP8: *NO.*
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *Will
>       frequently result in H.261 ({Chrome to any other browser},{Chrome to
>       install base}) and this is not acceptable from a quality perspective. *
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       9.
>
>    All entities MUST support Theora: *NO.*
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Will not produce interoperability with install base. *
>       10.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: Will result in H.261 in too many cases and this will not provide
>       sufficient quality.
>       11.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263} *NO.*
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Will result in H.263 in too many cases and this will not
>       provide sufficient quality. *
>       12.
>
>    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
>    support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *From a patent perspective is equivalent to implementing
>       both. *
>       13.
>
>    All entities MUST support H.263
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Quality not sufficient for commercial use.*
>       14.
>
>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}: *NO.*
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Will not produce interoperability with install base.*
>       15.
>
>    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora. *NO.*
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them:
>       16.
>
>    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
>    1.
>
>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: *NO.*
>       2.
>
>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>       them: *Quality not sufficient for commercial use.*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear WG,
>>
>> This is the email announcing the straw poll across the video codec
>> alternatives proposed to the WG. If you haven’t read the “Next Steps in
>> Video Codec Selection Process” (
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html )then
>> please do that before you continue to read.
>>
>> The straw poll’s purpose is to make it clear to the WG which of the
>> alternatives that are favored or disfavored and what objections you have,
>> if any, against a particular alternative. The WG chairs will use the
>> information from this straw poll to identify an alternative to put as a
>> single consensus question to the group. Thus, everyone that has an opinion
>> on at least one alternative should answer this poll. Provide your poll
>> input by replying to this email to the WG mailing list. The poll will run
>> until the end of the 12th of January 2014.
>>
>> As can be seen below, the poll lists the alternative that have proposed
>> to the WG. For each alternative two questions are listed.
>>
>> The first question is “Are you in favor of this option
>> [Yes/No/Acceptable]:”. These three levels allow you to indicate that you:
>> Yes= I would be fine with the WG choosing this option. No = I really don’t
>> favor this, and it should not be picked. Acceptable = I can live with this
>> option but I prefer something else to be picked.
>>
>> The second question is “Do you have any objections to this option, if so
>> please explain it:” If you have any objection at a minimum indicate it with
>> a “Yes”.   Please also add a short (1-sentence) summary of each of the
>> objections you believe applies.  (If you wish to provide a longer
>> explanation, please do so in a separate thread).  If you have no objection,
>> leave that question blank.
>>
>> Please provide input on as many of the alternatives as you like and feel
>> comfortable to do. The more inputs, the more well informed decision the WG
>> chairs can take when identifying the option to be brought forward for
>> consensus. Any alternative that you chose to leave blank, will simply be
>> considered as one without any input from you.
>>
>> WG participants, please do not comment on anyone’s input in this thread!
>> If you want to comment, then create a separate thread and change the
>> subject line to something else. Otherwise you are making life for the
>> chairs very difficult to track the results of this straw poll.
>>
>> If discussion causes you to update your position, please feel free to
>> send an update via email on the straw poll thread prior to the closing date.
>>
>>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support H.264
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       2.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       3.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       4.
>>
>>    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support
>>    at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       5.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       6.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support H.261
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       7.
>>
>>    There is no MTI video codec
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       8.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
>>    least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       9.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support Theora
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       10.
>>
>>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       11.
>>
>>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       12.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
>>    support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       13.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support H.263
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       14.
>>
>>    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       15.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>       16.
>>
>>    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
>>    1.
>>
>>       Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:
>>       2.
>>
>>       Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
>>       them:
>>
>>
>>
>>  H.264 is a reference to the proposal in
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>
>>
>> VP8 is a reference to the proposal in
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/>
>>
>> Theora is a reference to Xiph.org Theora Specification from March 16,
>> 2011 (http://www.xiph.org/theora/doc/Theora_I_spec.pdf)
>>
>> H.263 is a reference to profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of ITU-T
>> rec H.263 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/)
>>
>> H.261 is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4587
>>
>> Motion JPEG is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2435
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> The Chairs
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
> jdrosen@jdrosen.net
> http://www.jdrosen.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email