Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 16 October 2012 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 6B1AE21F880C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IUX7K0Be-9+S for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54F821F8805 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C25A39E197 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:49:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5FPpaAI7LOi for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:49:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:be30:5bff:fede:bcdc]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 724DF39E029 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:49:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <507D73E6.3030808@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:49:10 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <507D4302.9050108@ericsson.com> <CABRok6=xTv08si4iahN+i=LNrJtpJD6s3de3HQVCr=aLEPT8ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6=xTv08si4iahN+i=LNrJtpJD6s3de3HQVCr=aLEPT8ww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:49:14 -0000

On 10/16/2012 03:35 PM, Neil Stratford wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Magnus Westerlund
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> WG,
>>
>> The Video Codec selection internet draft to RTCWEB WG I have seen are
>> the following four:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00.txt
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec/
>>
>> Please review information and proposals and lets start discussing them
>> on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting in Atlanta.
> Something that concerns me about video codecs is the availability of a
> scalable coding profile. Many plugins that we are trying to replace
> with WebRTC appear to be starting to make use of scalable coding
> techniques to enable efficient multi-party calls. To encourage the
> replacement of such plugins the codec specified in WebRTC should offer
> the ability to match what is best practice today.
>
> I understand that H.264 has Annex G, and that VP8 has something
> similar. Are there any issues around making this MTI for either codec
> that would help drive a decision?
For one thing, I believe the hardware support for SVC is minimal to 
nonexistent.
People have also been raising doubts about the cost/benefit tradeoff of 
H.264 SVC.

At the moment, we have no proposals to adopt SVC as MTI, so I believe 
the point is moot.

Of course, any implementation that supports codecs beyond the MTI will 
be free to offer them as part of the negotiation phase. But that doesn't 
make them MTI.

                   Harald