Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 A96451ADFAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:41 -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 wboSx9mv8oPg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x232.google.com (mail-bk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1A81ADF82 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id e11so652776bkh.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yP9KXlAK1ddUo41DRT1kU/ty4WUcNdtzrZEIOxEbvK0=; b=XO9RitVrwyxfcZpRxtCHjUkkaEACgX/7rP5790ayH3TkzxbK+jd3tJ094L2oj6Yha5 UrEEIAC32jQatIcqwVjo2P9TnuWAmhop3itaRwhw5DmNdBeR6oq+NfUbbUu4ZMeEuN7w seRJJ+fHNZoClwj8rwpLdp59NI0EJxEwgbrMgClVmqAA3KtEGfQpaJBNQcNjILjLxo7p C9DXaLtvxESDyf7sf49Y65Jy/zZg8eYbkywV8u2gSAFtgoqSzeDduNY0yFCCl6ZrJ38V xymDyD2/u2ehmVsNZvtuydepv9oLfg1ptU2z22NOyWiT4AbmyneFBJNGHQzDO5VHyGJ8 o4jw==
X-Received: by 10.205.74.69 with SMTP id yv5mr407341bkb.35.1385103331990; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [0.0.0.0] (v2201202116457532.yourvserver.net. [46.38.243.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pn6sm30824968bkb.14.2013.11.21.22.55.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528F0051.6030006@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:21 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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, 22 Nov 2013 06:55:41 -0000

There are also proposals where H.261 is only required if one cannot 
implement both VP8 and H.264.

Maik

Am 21.11.2013 22:31, schrieb Stefan Slivinski:
> While I will readily admit this isn't the best analogy I think taking
> this to extremes and suggesting that someone working in their garage is
> at risk of being sued for IP infringement and then using that as
> justification for just requiring H.261 is a bit of a stretch.
>
>
>
>
> *From*: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com]
> *Sent*: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:21 PM
> *To*: Stefan Slivinski
> *Cc*: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> *Subject*: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
> That is a completely different situation. We are talking about the open
> web. Not some propriety disc format controlled by big companies.
> They can deal with IPR easily. Average people who want to work out of
> their garage do want other options even if it isn't the best.
> Besides this has been pointed out millions of times: Nothing stops
> anyone to implement VP8 or H.264 if H.261 is made MTI.
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 23:04, Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com
> <mailto:sslivinski@lifesize.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think arguing in favor of a legacy codec is completely counter
>     productive to the proliferation of webrtc.  This working group is
>     attempting to avoid dealing with the obvious IPR issues with vp8 and
>     h.264 that any and every webrtc vendor is going to have to deal
>     with.  We are basically saying 'we don't know how to deal with this
>     problem so you're on your own' which is completely the wrong message
>     to send as an organization.
>
>     Can you imagine if the bluray groups said we don't want to deal with
>     h.264 IPR issues so we'll just mandate h.261?
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com
>     <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>]
>     Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM
>     To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org
>     <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>>
>     Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> <rtcweb@ietf.org
>     <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
>     Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
>     On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
>      > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>
>     More than one person has already.
>
>     And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>     spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>     crappy.
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>