IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Chair request on video codec discussion

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.com>
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 BF23B21F9F2B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Oe8Qt7elR8Wh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F3B21F9EC8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3948; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383070338; x=1384279938; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=v4DnYMF2tZLVlUQATqTSygYqOnf0XW+eRTMbBNGnq8s=; b=iF6jgpfq/T3Nk0F3qOMuO0SVI2kQkiBN0M3Dqiy7bxMX93e5t71nIREf TiEs0xa0mzQiV20mJQvGBoj0H1O/bbFwdjgr7rNCzKAZJHfuMagBwVLbU 41QxOGAYv0+IZIDhbisymSrS417j9WMUPjx+wZ3cqlmQxgEzMKv6VYOvK U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcFAAv6b1KtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFS/NIEsFnSCJwEEgQsBCAQeHSgRFBECBAESCAyHYQMPDbAsDYlnBIxagjwtC4MfgQ0Dlh+OPIU3gyaCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,594,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="277914687"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2013 18:12:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9TICHF6006894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:12:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.14]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:12:17 -0500
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Chair request on video codec discussion
Thread-Index: AQHO1NJmhjY7i9GuCUeMa9FEJ8cP2w==
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:12:17 +0000
Message-ID: <3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91E1252CC@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMC25h0X2gigFjbeKMZY6Ehxy_UBdrg9ZvXXqtZ=p72jKA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.150.30.137]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3879D71E758A7E4AA99A35DD8D41D3D91E1252CCxmbrcdx14ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Chair request on video codec discussion
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, 29 Oct 2013 18:12:26 -0000

One minor point from a developer perspective, that would certainly not be significant enough to impact MTI, is the availability of development, debugging and analysis tools. Things like wireshark dissectors, conversion/extraction tools like videosnarf, video bitstream analyzers like Elecard, etc. H.264 is universally supported. VP8 is supported in recent releases of a few analyzers like Interra (that are quite expensive however). A wireshark bug (9274)<https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9274> was filed a few weeks ago requesting VP8. I don’t mention this to fuel the pros/cons debate, or suggest it impacts MTI, but to bring visibility to an area where the VP8 team can potentially help developers by sharing any tools they may have with the community, or help develop them if missing.

Mo


On 10/28/13, 5:08 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

Howdy,

While the proponents of H.264 and VP8 continue to discuss performance, there appears to be general agreement that either codec could serve the purpose set out our for our MTI:  to avoid negotiation failure that results in the loss of basic functionality.  If there are technical issues which would prevent  either from being used as the MTI that have not yet been raised, please do so before the beginning of IETF88.

regards,

Ted, Cullen, Magnus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email