Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

Randell Jesup <> Wed, 17 December 2014 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE191A1A11 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:44:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXcXWnBwQ1RW for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F70B1A1A06 for <>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:44:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: wwwh|x-authuser|
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5B1EB1208D9 for <>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:44:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: wwwh|x-authuser|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) by (trex/5.4.2); Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:44:23 GMT
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: wwwh|x-authuser|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: wwwh
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1418777063644:2910515384
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1418777063644
Received: from ([]:60092 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1Y12io-0002mg-9u for; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:44:10 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:43:39 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040006010303020105090908"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:44:30 -0000

On 12/16/2014 3:42 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:56 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> < 
> <>> wrote:
>     As far as I am concerned an IPR free codec is irrelevant if I
>     cannot talk to the endpoints I need to, and just concentrating on
>     the webrtc community as the available endpoint may meet some
>     deployers use cases, but not others.
> There is no such thing as IPR free codec, unless you are talking about 
> H.261 or MJPEG where IPR has expired. What we are looking for is a 
> video codec with an acceptable quality (both VP8 and H.264 qualify) 
> and reasonable licensing (both VP8 and H.264 have serious issues 
> here). If it is confirmed the VP8 licensing issues are resolved (i.e. 
> it went through the standardization process, all IPR declaration 
> against it which prevent licensing are confirmed to not apply in court 
> or due to some sort of licencing agreement), then VP8 is clearly 
> superior. If H.264 fixes its licensing (i.e. present a clear, 
> published, no royalty licensing terms with no use restrictions), it 
> can be a superior codec. Legacy interop support is important, but to 
> me at least, it is secondary to unrestricted use. Please see Opus vs 
> AMR-WB+ for clear similarities.

+1.  "IPR-free" barely would even apply to H.261 - you'd also have avoid 
any of the (patented) tricks on the encoding side that have shown up 
during later codec evolution from that  - but you always *can* avoid 
them by basing on ancient implementations.

> Also, VP9 or H.265 would clearly  improve video quality, but both VP8 
> and H.264 with the current connection speeds allow for the highly 
> usable video communications. I think that quality wise, either one of 
> VP8 and H.264 can serve as usable MTI for a lot longer then the next 
> two years or whatever time is required for the next great video codec 
> to be developed. Especially in another 5-6 years when all the IPR on 
> these codecs will expire.

+1 (Well, most of the patents on the decoder side and basic 
non-performant encoders may expire.  Patents are weird.)

We have better things to do...

Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com