Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2287111E81BA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:16:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y2GNdr5qufqL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22f.google.com (mail-bk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5EC11E81C7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so1009522bkb.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fxZuSC5Ftg5QB2r1nMVzhUdBS5L9L2qfAX2jaDZZIik=; b=dHzs+HViJNAZSIYDNl6NFDncUSQnjDqZMKY3/OcmYXIbFpRV0AS2Edtm7bjhbyL2Ft ofLADVxZaqu2zqZZviWfHLCC6FTuDCVH+dUHL/QaRjz0EDs5pkZdCsfZm+ZuFtpU9B/v fnLDvoQSbJ0wxN1UODHdXYN9dqshUWoFnKM/3nSj+GJja0ITiqkgNmCci+1B9FTSj3n+ 3zu0Ng2lXhakKUj81jOVKqYhMGuQZjS8GKCgo7dshCUVFbMBaXb+BnOaPH1gkIAsu3b9 7kFYCZELfRIPAHpbLrwexU2VDIp+jp5DU1pfwpaKOK3sRgwFHwa7p2jjM36Yoy3PiKxi ma+Q==
X-Received: by 10.204.69.12 with SMTP id x12mr12873659bki.12.1384794891001; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (dslb-188-101-189-061.pools.arcor-ip.net. [188.101.189.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zl3sm17353710bkb.4.2013.11.18.09.14.48 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528A4B07.7010104@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:14:47 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <528A0BD8.1070409@ericsson.com> <528A4408.50105@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <528A4408.50105@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:16:11 -0000

Regarding H.261, apart from ffmpeg there's also a maintained 
implementation over at

http://sourceforge.net/p/opalvoip/code/29319/tree/opal/trunk/plugins/video/H.261-vic/h261vic.cxx

which is covered by the Mozilla Public License 1.0 
(http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.0/).

"3.7. Larger Works.
You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work 
as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements 
of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."

The H.261 *en*coder of that project looks rather primitive (only 
generating I-frames), but the *de*coder should be feature-complete. 
Perhaps that's something to build upon.

I would also suspect that complete and battle-tested implementations 
gather dust at some vendors of telco stuff, but nobody seems to have 
open sourced one.



Maik


Am 18.11.2013 17:44, schrieb cowwoc:
>
> Looks good! I'd like to get a clarification which affects multiple
> options, but #10 most of all.
>
> Does the WG commit to providing reference implementations that supports
> VP8, H.264, H.261 with a commercially-friendly license? I am talking
> strictly about the software license, not the codec IPR. Meaning, libx264
> requires a GPL license and ffmpeg requires either a LGPL or GPL license.
> I would argue that libx264 is a non-starter for commercial use on any
> platform (due to GPL) and ffmpeg is not usable under iOS (since LGPL +
> static linking is equivalent to GPL). It is my understanding that the
> current WebRTC reference implementation is published under the BSD
> license. I am asking for the final reference implementation (supporting
> these codecs) to be published under the same license.
>
> I'm not saying that anyone has to ship a reference implementation
> supporting all 3 codecs, but rather that the WG should publish a
> reference implementation demonstrating how it can be done and proving
> interoperability actually works as expected.
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
> On 18/11/2013 7:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> WG,
>>
>> The current list of proposed alternative are the following one:
>>
>>   The following alternatives has been proposed:
>>
>>    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, other entities MUST
>>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    6. All entities MUST support H.261
>>    7. There is no MTI video codec
>>    8. 5+6, i.e. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST
>>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>>    9. All entities MUST support Theora.
>>   10. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST
>>       at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both
>>       H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261.
>>
>> The deadline to propose additional alternatives are: 27th of November
>> 2013
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> On 2013-11-13 21:23, Gonzalo Camarillo 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
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb