Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Mon, 18 November 2013 16:48 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 9863111E811A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 5AHRgKvb3RRL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3379711E81CB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id to1so9468282ieb.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:21 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oXQfgVs/7fKxYtSLUs+xvjMAkIYz7MeJffkKyh1jtZs=; b=O/alWggFyeEbrBa7EZ/svYrXyi4HcE9e2dLptdKMCZVgjUwohyrnOJIsmtafz0l2BK cwkzTghFJDLwVTHATG7qoBe6SxZ1jwQhVLhuowht6oB4IaYCPdK80zrrFViMO1t2/WZE DPdNw0GsgoZfc+hItyg1lDkQq03npPe4fVvJ4tEkozeSycqhbQI2yiEHnavYF7ZtMLWK jRH16TLhBJslad2j6pvOGrJLS19Dby3exsteqbhdif2MfWa3ANJNrrUGWNp7YSTnYwKJ 8pLoP8NE0zdPMLaa+L4zhaEFTRYznwGO50/rY2Oxi5VsbFAOCsX/XBc6TgTuZDuFX1YN TqHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklDxko3oYJv2MS0epFeQAqw4hVxnCCWZI5ov1la7lY42XlbNnnOirDiomEJAtK3KJW24Je
X-Received: by 10.50.124.133 with SMTP id mi5mr9414016igb.57.1384793121473; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:21 -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 ri5sm9543675igc.1.2013.11.18.08.45.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528A4408.50105@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:44:56 -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> <528A0BD8.1070409@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <528A0BD8.1070409@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:48:39 -0000

Looks good! I'd like to get a clarification which affects multiple 
options, but #10 most of all.

Does the WG commit to providing reference implementations that supports 
VP8, H.264, H.261 with a commercially-friendly license? I am talking 
strictly about the software license, not the codec IPR. Meaning, libx264 
requires a GPL license and ffmpeg requires either a LGPL or GPL license. 
I would argue that libx264 is a non-starter for commercial use on any 
platform (due to GPL) and ffmpeg is not usable under iOS (since LGPL + 
static linking is equivalent to GPL). It is my understanding that the 
current WebRTC reference implementation is published under the BSD 
license. I am asking for the final reference implementation (supporting 
these codecs) to be published under the same license.

I'm not saying that anyone has to ship a reference implementation 
supporting all 3 codecs, but rather that the WG should publish a 
reference implementation demonstrating how it can be done and proving 
interoperability actually works as expected.

Thanks,
Gili

On 18/11/2013 7:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> WG,
>
> The current list of proposed alternative are the following one:
>
>   The following alternatives has been proposed:
>
>    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, other entities MUST
>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    6. All entities MUST support H.261
>    7. There is no MTI video codec
>    8. 5+6, i.e. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST
>       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>    9. All entities MUST support Theora.
>   10. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST
>       at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both
>       H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261.
>
> The deadline to propose additional alternatives are: 27th of November 2013
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
> On 2013-11-13 21:23, Gonzalo Camarillo 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
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>