Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 14 November 2013 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 6AB2F21E81B0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.528, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 nimBe-Om5PhO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1141121E81C1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id u16so1988829iet.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=m2q/jTgC3v3UsvlVJZFglCWZOodTdtumCSBAnqauqP0=; b=G8MH+/uC5CVMck7nULwUMnbTPPjzYZdDVbm5b+cnzBGZgKRj9Lz+9YvrpCPQ//mh6D vO4Ek9McTAFtUtJoW+WAMTISoQkb/MrexxMKcOzWvRPtsubu/5nwP9fA+573RcAFb0ih Gca+zTDRx2+N3z9vcGiGTOYypPTPK9/6pJKOTJTnbZF70U/Q7AX2VeBwTDAXmNuON5h/ eAMRBsg9dG6ACrtNj1p3+i3RAwSHmrsB03VXjjN3QQfWxye2uIK9mkfarWvuq560Kjqk 9DRt1QX+cwmHHF6mumLIKIeQaiZ9t/6a9j8+M54/QxNNZ8Eb+G+TjBXA05A8X5/u61QQ rjOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMFzIU2PuQ8AigfmWOR5nMPmHPYCqx9qXBoQ5kVJptvB3TRMzvcYHNzKSv2D9OVJKVgkzI
X-Received: by 10.50.30.229 with SMTP id v5mr329250igh.27.1384406563599; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j16sm34605687igf.6.2013.11.13.21.22.42 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52845E12.3000509@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:22:26 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <CEA93953.AA11A%stewe@stewe.org> <CA+23+fHWsaz3mbTfmw+so_9Mj5BXKAEkQCvNfr5bo+0G9s80mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fHWsaz3mbTfmw+so_9Mj5BXKAEkQCvNfr5bo+0G9s80mw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060203030403040108010908"
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 05:22:55 -0000

That's reasonable. Thanks for the clarification :)

Gili

On 13/11/2013 9:26 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Regarding number 4, here is how I think of it:
>
> If browsers implement both, it means that an application provider 
> wishing to offer a service (take Hangouts or Skype as examples), can 
> pick the one they like, implement just that in their native apps 
> (mobile, desktop, etc.) where the app provider has control over the 
> full stack, and still work with clients of that service which run in 
> the browser, where the app provider does not have control over the 
> full stack as the real-time media stack is provided by the browser and 
> not the web app.
>
> The benefit of this approach is that it enables interoperability 
> between clients on different platforms for the same provider.
>
> The drawback is, for inter-service federation (which requires much 
> more than just codecs to be aligned), you might run into a case where 
> a user using a mobile app from provider 1 (say, Skype) calls a user 
> using a mobile app from provider 2 (say, Hangouts), and then since 
> each chose a different video codec, there is no common codec. Of 
> course that assumes the two providers in question are willing to even 
> federate in the first place.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org 
> <mailto:stewe@stewe.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Gonzalo,
>     Re your point 5.: ³either or² is often understood as an exclusive
>     or.  I
>     don¹t think anyone proposed that.  A better way to express 5. would be
>     ³All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8².
>     Stephan
>
>     On 11.13.2013, 12:23 , "Gonzalo Camarillo"
>     <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
>     <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     >Folks,
>     >
>     >I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
>     >
>     >As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the selection
>     of the
>     >MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we
>     have on
>     >the table:
>     >
>     > 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>     > 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>     > 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>     > 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>     > 5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
>     > 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>     > 7. There is no MTI video codec
>     >
>     >If you want the group to consider additional alternatives to the ones
>     >above, please let the group know within the following *two weeks*. At
>     >that point, the chairs will be listing all the received
>     alternatives and
>     >proposing a process to select one among them.
>     >
>     >Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You do not
>     need to
>     >write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the final
>     >document regarding video codecs.
>     >
>     >Thanks,
>     >
>     >Gonzalo
>     >Responsible AD for this WG
>     >
>     >_______________________________________________
>     >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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
> jdrosen@jdrosen.net <mailto:jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
> http://www.jdrosen.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb