Re: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Mon, 05 September 2011 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A551B60AD3 for <rtcweb@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDearAJ8bveQ for <rtcweb@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7381B60ACA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 16:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] (unverified [71.202.147.60]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 33551-1743317 for multiple; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:27:55 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:27:42 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA8A9723.30778%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?
In-Reply-To: <4E652D2C.8080408@alvestrand.no>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 71.202.147.60
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (71.202.147.60) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?
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, 05 Sep 2011 23:46:02 -0000

On 9.5.2011 13:12 , "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

>On 09/05/2011 07:09 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> In this context, Alex and myself drafted and presented in Quebec
>> 
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wenger-rtcweb-layered-codec-00.
>>tx
>> 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
>presumptuous.)
>
>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...

Stephan

>
>          Harald
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb