IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:12 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 6D31E11E8178 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:12:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 Cl6Ybbe8CKcT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45B411E817A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:12:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5398; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383671540; x=1384881140; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=rgvVbrpzfvaLY4slUITf8lcEc1racqR9nrNjqnW4kSU=; b=YzOu88VnaC7nlCggfZ/f7hL4LPiNu+3/EK5EKet0SdAbH3sZqJ/+2Mdb plwG7ro8sao/MplLragFH7i9Z7y5hrWWVSa4z+zw0RispwudMb5+mVhpH AdbZWXUzeHEUw2rjYjA+hHFF72mOhfDEzR8b/sADHftZS69pqDAkuxh6K w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAMEleVKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO+bUuBLBZ0gicBBAEBAWsdAQgECjEoBgsUEQIEARIUh1sDDw20eA2JZwSMZ4JuC4QvA5YfgWuMUoU3gyaCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,640,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="280971831"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 17:12:14 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA5HCEX9014435 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:12:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.50]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:12:13 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
Thread-Index: AQHO2korzslk1I1xbU+9ODKbbBKnhQ==
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:12:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9E89B3.1BE14%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiS326saNJ7-0RmVQXYaJBW6Qmo=r9-oYmGiUzP-sDTcXQ@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: [10.82.253.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE9E89B31BE14mzanatyciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI
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, 05 Nov 2013 17:12:29 -0000

Any implementation can refuse to implement any MTI, whether it is 1 or 2. I see more good than harm by mandating both. We mandated Opus and G.711, right? Did anyone complain that 2 MTIs would increase the chance of negotiation failure? Forcing a binary MTI decision suggests an intent to let one live and kill the other. Live and let live...

Mo


On 11/5/13, 11:33 AM, Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com<mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com>> wrote:

Both can't be made mandatory, because some parties would refuse to implement VP8 or H.264. This will cause negotiation failure anyway.
What about a 3?
3. If you support a codec with expired IPR(such as H.261) as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

None should only be an option if 1/2/3 can't be satisfied. Actually None shouldn't even be an option, because it won't solve negotiation failure.


On 5 November 2013 16:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com<mailto:andrew.hutton@unify.com>> wrote:
It seems to me that making both VP8 and H264 MTI might be a good option for WebRTC in terms of maximizing interoperability and would be a better decision coming out of this IETF meeting than no decision at all.

Can we have some clarification as to whether any consensus call during this week's meeting will include this option?

Previously it was stated that the questions to be asked would be:

1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.

2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.


How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made MTI?

Regards
Andy
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email