Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@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 D9DD81AE39C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 T831UNdl6QOB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599561AE37E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c11so296871lbj.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:39 -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=DUk0fk79jB8w3Xwxe2omO6eU+xa8iX+Z856YrY5AtMk=; b=dttj9mt+/qEI14y+Jc+lqygVH6cD07yMju6D2TVhXJES0kfBLVPk3oldai+ZI5+qDD 4FlNhU14g28XdfH4cnKo3AhXw4tpbcT+Lz/YoOyA2vgzIj38SWTLKhaX63uzOMzYnALV hNyoq54Dk+9FlA71ClN51cZI895Pj2cfe4OBsgkW3NDoGtvNA4MFm4UUkCpSDbv4iAED XgWurI0CDwad4lgPYEmU3RnZhH8Uo2Mr2UxLqnMxR2IgX+xEIu3HwnKVkbDEgMWbVOze ey4N1r4dBe4qK0N22czivJy+cZ1dvNyEItiuTPO1CV2Qoa3GqNY+VqPwYjrv3M8tW47B yy3A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.4.230 with SMTP id n6mr6540667lan.1.1385070459784; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:47:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOHeof1MGFpV3+gcecrfuBwoRD1ghokjrYMy97u37W+sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <528E7C26.3000100@googlemail.com> <CABcZeBOHeof1MGFpV3+gcecrfuBwoRD1ghokjrYMy97u37W+sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:47:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiTeHdmp9L98FZgsTrLsB_DmQBvbr=uzns2QFRHQTaMaYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1e8ebe941304ebb6d893
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:47:50 -0000

>>I don't recall anyone saying that it was, and that's missing the point.
>>Rather, given that H.261 is really lame and that most everyone is
>>going to deploy *either* VP8 or H.264, I'm trying to figure out why
>>mandating H.261 is useful

No interoperability if nothing is between the two clients to transcode the
video. *either* doesn't always mean both H.264 and VP8. So H.261 will be
useful if transcoding can't be done.


On 21 November 2013 23:40, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that WebRTC is not a browser-only thing.
>
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was, and that's missing the point.
> Rather, given that H.261 is really lame and that most everyone is
> going to deploy *either* VP8 or H.264, I'm trying to figure out why
> mandating H.261 is useful
>
>
>  Also: Just because Mozilla may have found a way to sidestep the H.264
>> licensing issues with the help of Cisco, this doesn't mean this "fix"
>> applies everywhere. For example, is the blob acceptable for Iceweasel? And
>> what do the limited distribution rights of OpenH264 mean regarding system
>> administration (e.g., replicating machines with disk images)?
>>
>
> These may be relevant questions in some other thread, but not here.
>
> However, with that said, Cisco's blob should be usable for IceWeasel.
> Whether the IceWeasel people opt to use it is of course up to them.
> WRT the second question, 100k images is a lot of images.
>
> -Ekr
>
> Maik
>>
>> Am 21.11.2013 22:14, schrieb Eric Rescorla:
>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
>>> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
>>> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson
>>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     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
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>