Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

[Alexandre GOUAILLARD <[e-mail]>]

I support the rough consensus as presented by the chair.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:19 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:00 , Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 2014-12-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>:
> >> +1 - it's by no means my preferred solution, but it's one I can live
> with,
> >> and better than the alternative of the status-quo - no MTI at all.  If
> it
> >> wasn't for OpenH264, my answer would be different.
> >>
> >> I can't see adopting H.264 as sole MTI, and I can't see that we'd get
> >> consensus to adopt VP8 as sole MTI.
> >
> > There was a much better solution:
> >
> > - Don't make VP8 nor H264 MTI.
> > - So for now no MTI video codec.
> > - And a W3C compromise: First video codec 100% royalty free would
> > become MTI in WebRTC.
> >
> > Things would be exactly as they are now, but at least we avoid a
> > "MUST" that will be ignored by 50% of the market.
>
> That would be more honest, indeed. It is effectively where we are going to
> be.  And it offers a carrot in the right direction.
>
> I am curious to know how many of the people supporting the proposed
> position actually would implement both encode and decode of both codecs?
> This follows from comments on this thread that people who feel they fall
> into a different category are asking others to solve their problem.
>
> So, rather than +1, please say “I would expect to implement both”
> (non-binding, of course) — it would be a more useful thing to see, I think.
>
>
>
> Another possible choice:
>
> * admit that we already have possible non-interoperability
> (WebRTC-compatible Endpoints that choose differently), and that anyone who
> doesn’t want to do both will say that this what they are making (as was
> suggested):  simply delete the requirement or definitions for WebRTC
> User-agent and Device. Nothing stops those that want to from implementing
> both, without or without the mandate.  I don’t think this would make any
> material difference to what happens, but it makes the spec and reality a
> little closer.
>
>
>
> Finally, I wonder, what would it be like if we actually tried to get
> closer to interop: ALL endpoints — anything that can operate at one end of
> a WebRTC session, be it device, UA, gateway, compatible-endpoint, whatever
> — must be able to decode (actually, offer to receive) both, and must be
> able to encode at least one?  I’d have to think about the consequences of
> doing decode-only, but it’s a loss less work than a decent encoder, for a
> start. This would result in interop if people actually did it.
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> 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

   -