Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really going to spend 2 full hours rehashing this?
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 14 October 2013 14:34 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 CBB3321F9B35 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.927
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ktJU+DxJDqE2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7AF11E8147 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU406-EAS58 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:34:41 -0700
X-TMN: [9B/lS6GdjwvF8IH2YIHrN8ao7pXiceFl]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU406-EAS583F2302887B3DAB31ABAC931A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_74173035-84b4-4a67-b1f3-0c986d4534c0_"
References: <525BFB6F.5080403@alvestrand.no> <CAHBDyN4NNEXmKt=1WJpV58YbeZinqeTMVQqC_U4YsqMUEW8cZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN4NNEXmKt=1WJpV58YbeZinqeTMVQqC_U4YsqMUEW8cZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 07:34:36 -0700
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2013 14:34:41.0261 (UTC) FILETIME=[849569D0:01CEC8EA]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really going to spend 2 full hours rehashing this?
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, 14 Oct 2013 14:34:45 -0000
+1. Allocating two hours is a colossal waste of time. > On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:22 AM, "Mary Barnes" <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote: > > I totally agree with the sentiment that the WG can make much better use of the 2 hours. We previously spent 2+ hours on this topic with no conclusion. Is the new information on VP8 enough to change anyone's opinion? Why not ask the questions that were proposed for this topic *now* on the mailing list? > > Regards, > Mary. > > >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> I've read the H.264 Constrained Baseline proposal. >> >> It contains no information that hasn't been presented to the list long ago; all but the performance evaluations were presented in Florida. >> >> I've written the VP8 proposal. >> It contains new information, but only in the form of pointing out that VP8 is more widely deployed, closer to being an ISO standard, and working better than when we discussed this in Florida. It is also being universally deployed in existing WebRTC implementations (Mozilla and Chrome). >> >> We know that for most participants, the IPR issue is the only real issue. So far, I haven't seen any of the people who were saying "we want to ship products but can't possibly use H.264" saying that they have changed their minds. >> >> Yet the chairs are proposing the following 2-hour agenda: >> >> Frame discussions and process and agenda: 10 min (chairs) >> >> VP8 presentation with clarify questions - 25 min (???) >> >> H.264 presentation with clarify questions - 25 min (???) >> >> Microphone discussions of pro/cons - 40 min (all) >> >> Call the question - 10 min ( chairs ) >> >> Wrap up and next steps - 10 min (chairs) >> >> Celebrate on our successful decision reach. >> >> >> Don't we have ways in which we can make better use of 2 hours? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
_______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really going t… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] H.264 versus VP8 - are we really goi… Ted Hardie