Re: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?

Stephan Wenger <> Mon, 05 September 2011 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A551B60AD3 for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDearAJ8bveQ for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7381B60ACA for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 33551-1743317 for multiple; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:27:55 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:27:42 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>,
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP ( was found in the spamhaus database.
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?
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: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:46:02 -0000

On 9.5.2011 13:12 , "Harald Alvestrand" <> wrote:

>On 09/05/2011 07:09 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> In this context, Alex and myself drafted and presented in Quebec
>> t, which argues against mandation of codec technologies not supporting
>> scalability.  I have not seen any significant discussion in Quebec or on
>> this mailing list about codec selection, though there was some initial
>> noise on this topic during the BOFs.
>The other consideration that has been raised is, of course, the issue of
>license-insisted-on versus practiced-without-a-license codecs (I won't
>call them "license required" or "license free"; that would be
>I believe we need a baseline codec that is "good enough", but I have
>neither a clear picture on how to quantify "good enough", nor a
>conviction that the scalability advantages raised in draft-wenger are
>important enough to tilt the balance.

Hi Harald,

What you write above is IMO a reasonable position only if you are
convinced that "practiced-without-a-license" has a sustainable mid-to
long-term perspective.  With respect to VP8, I'm not convinced, for a
number of reasons, some of which I could talk publicly about when asked
(though I prefer not to load up this list with my arguments, and,
therefore, don't volunteer them now).  Based on my current knowledge, I
could accept H.261 and H.263 as being "practiced-witout-a-license", but
those two are probably not considered "good enough" anymore by many here.
Btw., I like your "practiced-without-a-license" formulation, but note that
H.264 and its profiles (including commercially highly relevant profiles
such as High Profile) is occasionally also practiced without a license, as
a few open source projects in this field indicate.  Whether this is a
particularly good business choice depends on the business model of the
person making or using H.264 based systems.  Similarly, there are (and
have been for a while) indications that VP8 could soon fall in the
"license-insisted-on" category, in which case the prudence of practicing
VP8 without entering in license(s) also depends on the business model...


>          Harald
>rtcweb mailing list