IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 14 January 2014 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 F032C1AE0B4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:14:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] 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 yMXjCno6griX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:213:72ff:fe0b:80d8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BAF31AE090 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4032F39E9D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:14:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kpb8R7u6c5Gd for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:14:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:8c58:b9b1:4ca1:d881] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:8c58:b9b1:4ca1:d881]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C04239E98B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:14:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52D51C28.9020907@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:14:48 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A1672E8F2@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A1672E8F2@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030907060800000409030309"
Subject: [rtcweb] Giri's choices - interoperability (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: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:14:51 -0000

On 01/12/2014 06:00 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
>
> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>
> 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:
>
> Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP 
> IMS Video Telephony. VP8 standardization is incomplete.
>
I have a problem interpreting the first sentence in the objections here.

If a system implements H.264, as required under this option, why would 
it not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS 
Video Telephony?

And if it would not allow that, wouldn't that also be an objection to 
option 1 (H.264 only)?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email