IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Fri, 27 December 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 8EEE01AE3DD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:07:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 IgBDTHxYB84q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E568F1AE3BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:07:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k19so30477792igc.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gUyennuJpoXKh8jiaHvhWvIzu2cBx7C4mB79DA5AFUc=; b=mg7Q9sgtWGo+7JBtHmD3WurAtoN/2ygD+rHaioG2Xfr8mWCS9ERTG66127F3WLKLq1 5N+VfCfyl7CWrArdE1GA4ALCr5Us8wbuDFnIIFP9MMOm9dWAQ7IeYt7youltTMBUlxDA rq6FCGZ30C/J8touIuTbm+jy8lX6GgLacAD7vHRmdK7d1iKqyMfkxpjmeQ3/FnDmWXs3 nrMNv0dUwmqWEmuZn/VlouOcD3In51emTy1NJTaYAd7CR5Bl4K7/tDpCG/T7E26Ca0GX tI0nRMHGMpUPRca04ozRgRksDl/CtJyVfGB3/miov2X2krJ4YxioTIEgPSzwjnrQpbcD kq8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmWpybQiNf4/nHzbM4GhBCHqJDAIrsNGkCxeP7XnFX7V3WuTl4iU7ErjMjIqkvYMpO7n/GV
X-Received: by 10.50.138.98 with SMTP id qp2mr27660212igb.27.1388174818928; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ft2sm44548709igb.5.2013.12.27.12.06.57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52BDDDBB.60703@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:06:19 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C82365151@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com> <52BA718E.1030105@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C823653F7@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com>
In-Reply-To: <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C823653F7@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices
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, 27 Dec 2013 20:07:06 -0000

So you are saying that if H.264 is not selected as MTI you would rather 
drop down to audio-only (or do transcoding) than support any other codec?

I know H.264 is your ideal choice, but what option do you favor if that 
falls through?

Gili

On 27/12/2013 1:20 PM, Mishra, Sanjay wrote:
> Martin -- We are ok to have VP8 in addition to H.264 which is what option 3 is, but are not supportive of eliminating H.264 as a MTI which is a possible outcome of choices under option 10. H.261 is not a reasonable alternative to H.264; it is an inherently low resolution (CIF) and used for video conferencing over the ISDN lines and is a big step backwards.
>
>
> Thanks
> Sanjay
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 12:48 AM
> To: Mishra, Sanjay
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Sanjay Mishra's choices (was: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
>
> Hello Sanjay, others,
>
> I have a clarifying question below.
>
> On 2013/12/24 23:44, Mishra, Sanjay wrote:
>> Please see responses for video codec alternatives below.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sanjay
> [snip]
>
>> 3.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>
>> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES
> [snip]
>
>> 10.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>>
>> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
>>
>> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
>>
>> o   Do not support possible outcome of VP8 and H.261 as MTI
> Given that you are in favor of 3, and surprised at the NO here, and even more surprised at your justification. What's the problem if, under this option, some entities (not you) decide to implement VP8 and H.261, and communicate among themselves using either of these two?
>
> It looks to me like there's either a fundamental issue for you that nobody else has mentioned yet, or there is a misunderstanding, and it would be great if you could clarify.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email