Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Sun, 19 October 2014 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 7D07F1A1B48 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 UVFNbt7PqVXM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 701BD1A1B45 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id l18so3842963wgh.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=RbJ1Ka/0cFysFBZFhz1oKXN7plzob27YiZKgG8ahBds=; b=UeV3tBAqPRlBE5G6C2sLfTp0Kzeq/BEMwNLbQ8V8vlCYduj+oleL8i2oVDCSJmuo3M PfXeLUye0ApPSVqUWYI/bPN4i5lK+nN7hDJ48n+34Szr0hvQ+7Y/ysSC2OdSF/RgzeqO Jdg/sdUm4pEpBhJcDyuF6Ovum1nrN3y4e5DbP45NlriftQydZneiPPw6+CWkDl26Z8ak YmBkeE189Z5vC619sSeGo4AIbgk2A3cT4g9WtkQcgTQ/s7jKD5aPmprJujVwCCeYjrmC pEv42Ap83l8JO0HgpIGCNjAw1rVFwB7x4pxuL7R0+XT+/efe7QAYjC7FhVlX1dXgk3Qg 5Q4Q==
X-Received: by 10.194.239.10 with SMTP id vo10mr26249615wjc.29.1413733430988; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.134.196 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <544117FB.6050706@alvestrand.no> <CAHgZEq6GTk5ei+LLpWPM5povpieompD66VU9F+u7--WJVgapaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:43:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c28eccf61aaa0505c8767a
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/b_x8wQhQAWuv4ZuLy5EZF5FQRjU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:43:55 -0000

"And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the technology"

[BA] Specifying an MTI encoder/decoder is not sufficient for
interoperability.  It is also necessary to specify the transport in enough
detail to allow independent implementations that interoperate well enough
to be usable in a wide variety of scenarios, including wireless networks
where loss is commonly experienced.

We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously with not enough
details on that subject, particularly with respect to H.264.
draft-ietf-rtcweb-video sections 4.2 - 4.4 remain sketchy at best.

So if we are to have the discussion again, it should occur in the context
of detailed specifications and interoperability reports.





On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
wrote:

> I'm in favor of taking another run at this.
>
> The working group has repeatedly said that an MTI codec is something we
> need to produce. And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the
> technology (not the only one for sure).
>
> And things have changed since the last meeting, a year ago now (November
> in Vancouver). Cisco's open264 plugin shipped and now just recently is
> integrated into Firefox. iOS8 shipped with APIs for H264. There are other
> things worth noting. Will this change the minds of everyone? Surely not.
> Will it sway enough for us to achieve rough consensus? Maybe. IMHO - worth
> finding out.
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <
> agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has been made
>> on VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing harald's  feeling that there
>> was no change on the members position.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>>> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually
>>>> make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
>>>> actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in -overview: It
>>> guards against interoperability failure.
>>>
>>> I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box, connect it
>>> to everything else, and run well for *some* level of "well" - and I would
>>> prefer that ecosystem to be one where it's possible to field the box
>>> without making prior arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>>>
>>> This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we discussed it.
>>> And I don't see much movement on the specifics of the proposals either.
>>>
>>> We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So using some
>>> time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to make sense. (And 4.1 isn't
>>> finished either. There's one sentence that needs to be removed.)
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu. But I'd
>>> prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some significant players
>>> have actually changed their minds.
>>>
>>> At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll respondents have
>>> said "I have changed my mind".
>>>
>>> Harald
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>>>>>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than actually
>>>>>> finishing a specification that can be independently implemented by all
>>>>>> browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near having, as
>>>>>> far as
>>>>>> I can tell)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
>>>>> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
>>>>> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
>>>>> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
>>>>> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>>
>>    -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>