Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7793321F9FA4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.645, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0IIg954q2Dv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BE221E81CA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n7so1267139lam.30 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Hkh78ivAZ0L6/iiiBumGHhnrjpaUbZCX0QrbAxgL8ao=; b=eUKmmvtptDK19+jYS1bYIYwijGuSyIlaQNvU6wYTA8/YEMFTnIl4weqrAMU4pJVMQq BvYhFjEcfVlIQVISlaCU8olw7ns/BRWf+crCzZuBkaLN1yfZapiG8S/bpZmC7+KSm2R7 fgkl8CvOsXyPuC61SSEWweWfd9kPmUot9jFud1p5RX0Z9pfaPog8WXzzjFfqmBpmVgyF mSBuf2sgbSPulmLmcbQwvN6XtiuRHUfwFN9YzHP/FV+/Z1R3I1amWovebbHS+JzAy1xX n8m3LikJ+UVjGFEWXdFSXe7qneFbH7qpyqi1Fbk+7s8WLn4mTAl4QGBVdMY9bj9SLmJo c62A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.159.231 with SMTP id xf7mr27255lbb.18.1384413820800; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:23:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52845E10.4040205@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <CAD6AjGQwhmhmpJh7=ORYc=FRQMnOO=1vCNMCmXaYFXmC71rKMQ@mail.gmail.com> <52845E10.4040205@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:23:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiRcg8=a+Djg5eAywfuwO4vrfRvDfxFH8KBWNs9TP5mPOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3c4fe02d6b404eb1df619
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:23:49 -0000

>>SHOULD doesn't carry any accountability. Anyone will tell you they have a
"real good reason" to avoid implementing one >>codec or another. We've
heard plenty of excuses on this list of why one party or another believes
it is legally risky to >>implement VP8 or H.264, respectively. So in that
sense, it is meaningless.

I agree. SHOULD is just like 'no MTI' and point 5 also implies 'no MTI'


On 14 November 2013 07:22, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:

> On 13/11/2013 11:11 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
>>
>> Why no SHOULD implement vp8 and h248? SHOULD means you will do it unless
>> you have a real good reason.
>>
>>
> SHOULD doesn't carry any accountability. Anyone will tell you they have a
> "real good reason" to avoid implementing one codec or another. We've heard
> plenty of excuses on this list of why one party or another believes it is
> legally risky to implement VP8 or H.264, respectively. So in that sense, it
> is meaningless.
>
>
>  MUST is too hard for this WG.  Many implementations have a really good
>> reason to not do vp8 OR h248.
>>
>> Saying that all webrtc MUST do one or the other or both is disingenuous.
>>
>> SHOULD for both is as good as we are going to get with this complicated
>> IPR environment.  Using MUST is simply not going to work and we have 10,000
>> on this mailer to back that up.
>>
>>
> What you say is true, but if we accept this (and go with SHOULD) we are
> essentially ending up with "no MTI" which leads to the dark side
> (transcoding or dropped calls).
>
> Rock --> WebRTC <-- Hard place :)
>
> Gili
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>