Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <> Mon, 04 November 2013 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5700C21E8255 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:47:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dt1bo7kwZyCM for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD7D21E8250 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:47:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5045; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383587245; x=1384796845; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UNQKxGINIZUFnGKlQ1xi+sxkBksamcAohBx1zJUzfQQ=; b=PWEqkHpgWHO/PYCjI4g+fbBrjICzBaumZLHlTllQuylS9wRraquhVvnJ xKoj5MKGHRsmDtF6BIV7qosJvuRWHeA3tGHeFBygV0924aRe1T3EEMZAM yHjxzRMLFI48+/O9cV3Z9loqHFMQ5GIikP6mwAKQ7E/meN9MZ45A472Bw U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFACLdd1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEgQu/PoEpFnSCLIELAQgEOzkUEQIEARKIAb5Uj1+ELgOYCpIJgWiBPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,633,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="280492201"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 17:47:23 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4HlNG6006521 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 17:47:23 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:47:23 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>
To: cowwoc <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
Thread-Index: AQHO2YXqtuYmm9Hvxk6LyuM6V4y7Jg==
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:47:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE9D3DBB1B371mzanatyciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:47:52 -0000

Baseline Profile was in the original 2003 version of H.264, along with the optional constraint (constraint_set1_flag) to exclude some rather exotic error resilience tools (ASO/FMO/RS). This constrained Baseline Profile was universally deployed. The unconstrained Baseline Profile was not as widely deployed. The 2009 version merely acknowledged industry practice by giving it an official name, Constrained Baseline Profile, which is easier to say than Baseline Profile with constraint_set1_flag=1. There were no changes in the bitstream or tools, just an easier official name.

To be fair, H.264 interop has not been a painless endeavor over the years, in part due to multiple profiles. Implementers have worked through many issues to achieve the nearly universal interop enjoyed today across hundreds or thousands of vendors and implementations. VP8 should have an easier time, since it doesn’t have multiple profiles, packetization modes, etc. But VP8 will go through some of the same pains when many implementations flourish (software and hardware). The pain is not felt yet since there are only two vendors (Google and Mozilla) in close contact using a shared software implementation.


On 11/4/13, 11:35 AM, cowwoc <<>> wrote:

On 04/11/2013 11:26 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
Interop is certainly a consideration and that's where H.264's advantage lies.  (H.264's only real technical advantages are interop and the possibility of existing hardware support).

    When was Constrained Baseline Profile defined? Based on Wikipedia I'm guessing it was sometime in 2009. If so, how widely is it implemented?

    We keep on referring to H.264 as a black box that is supported universally, but when you dig into the specifics (specific profile on specific platforms) the story is a lot less clear.