IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices (was: Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

"Mishra, Sanjay" <sanjay.mishra@verizon.com> Fri, 27 December 2013 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sanjay.mishra@verizon.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 4C7D11AE259 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GvYwwWhjrKir for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com (omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com [199.249.25.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0935B1AE24F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:20:31 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2013 18:20:26 +0000
From: "Mishra, Sanjay" <sanjay.mishra@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,561,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="619605368"
Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.188]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2013 18:20:26 +0000
Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v23.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.159]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.188]) with mapi; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:20:26 -0500
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:20:23 -0500
Thread-Topic: Sanjay Mishra's choices (was: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
Thread-Index: Ac8BNPBei1uLN4Q8RGu6ty6UijvWSwB+e8RA
Message-ID: <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C823653F7@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C82365151@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com> <52BA718E.1030105@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <52BA718E.1030105@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices (was: Re: 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, 27 Dec 2013 18:20:33 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email