Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)

Hadriel Kaplan <> Sat, 16 March 2013 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9F621F8489 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.473
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yb44e068tX1a for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B5021F8461 for <>; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363464521-03fc200f2569ba00001-4f8tJD
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id mKL7co965lFyPtoG (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:08:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:08:41 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: Leon Geyser <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
Thread-Index: AQHOIoINB2FLs5eFwEWPBpfdI6hh5g==
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:08:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363464521
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability between browsers (MTI Video)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:08:47 -0000

On Mar 16, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Leon Geyser <> wrote:

> --Decide on VP8:
> This would be the ideal choice and there shouldn't be a reason not to implement VP8.

I believe the jury's still out on that.  From what I understand, some of the vendors are concerned that VP8 may still be encumbered by patents outside of MPEG-LA, and besides the details of the RF usage for VP8 from MPEG-LA have still not been disclosed. (e.g., the strings attached to the usage might be unacceptable to some vendors)

> --Decide on H.261:
> This might be old tech, but browsers might be able to use H.261 without paying any royalties and without transcoding.
> The codec can be used at 352x288 resolution from 64Kbit/s to 2Mbit/s
> Remember this is just a fallback for interoperability. Browsers will still implement VP8 and/or H.264.
> ...
> Atleast there is video instead of no Video. Any opinions?

I agree this would be better than nothing, as mentioned on the thread titled "Video Codec MTI & User Experience == 1".
I also asked a few vendors after this week's meetings whether their existing devices support H.261, but they didn't know.  If most existing video devices do, then having H.261 as the MTI would also facilitate interop with legacy equipment.  I.e., it would follow the same rationale for why we chose G.711 as one of the MTI audio codecs.