Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 23:10 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 A52B61ACF9C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 9AKoTftO-MMZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCFA81ACF9B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ft15so8769378pdb.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=/RriDt8JKOh/Ne141qVNyZn4ygCXa3piHhgFDHio1W4=; b=ZtpWleW//B7hvW7wJyNo4GDcVRrTPKDtMbappCCMsTcjBQv06Hvnaw/EPVdrl4t1ZS oEEPIIZ5rv+NIuzPzrbpHfO1fjbbGw91UPbyeFaozIdwX9Dki9VhpZpQibLvRCEOrvsA vYuv2hg+n4NckwYIHIZMc5OgjO6Kkj6JjjWTWq062+/cEZU7uK+PznFirKUiZUYPbgK8 +1KKSjJrKvhcX1ox0ViKlNczHeTvXAa9VUSH14ZFe+7ka9WNU4gZPls1d3Bjt+VznPok gSKeVbdyBQEqLepCA+bfyuDruqyY2OgbaiLVuWVGAwiQVOBqVHYww4CoQDkL5RJkew9J DgWQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.124.228 with SMTP id ml4mr35676330pab.42.1415661046221; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.219.121.254] ([166.170.51.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bz3sm17597561pab.41.2014.11.10.15.10.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:10:44 -0800 (PST)
References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <CALiegf=2taTKeWj2cojy0tZsTpM5WY9YyPOzNtCz3ob_3eq=1g@mail.gmail.com> <E7A2D65C-D6D9-430F-A12B-68AE4FBBFF01@matthew.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <E7A2D65C-D6D9-430F-A12B-68AE4FBBFF01@matthew.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7622063-47CD-46DE-BA6F-1E0E162CB406@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B411)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:10:40 -1000
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bxjawTYccpgaywEeiBTILVwgWBs
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:10:48 -0000

Are there any browser vendors beyond Mozilla indicating they would ship both codecs simply as a result of the proposal being adopted (no other conditions)?  



> On Nov 10, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>; wrote:
> 
> Do you believe that making a codec mandatory in an IETF spec will force the corporate lawyers at the browser vendors to drop their objections to that codec?
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> 
> (Sent from my iPhone)
> 
>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>; wrote:
>> 
>> 2014-11-10 3:08 GMT+01:00 Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>;:
>>> 1. WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
>> 
>> If "WebRTC User Agent" means web browser (and I think so), I am in
>> favour of non mandating web browsers to implement non-free&open
>> codecs.
>> 
>> This is, a MTI codec must be open, free, and free of royalty/licensing stuff.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Iñaki Baz Castillo
>> <ibc@aliax.net>;
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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