Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 26 December 2013 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85AE1AE0D1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yb2YpWsu_WPk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A1F1AE0C8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id tp5so8214691ieb.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bmEtdLyj4nfdi+U3nBuj689NiQ0zd71/h87/bJPrht8=; b=FvC/7k3Pyt9LosYOdmwY4rR7kI8qeYpO3SqpSLu1CTluSd5t+9rQKiCgtyFTcc1S/6 beq4ygtnDlNSub4WfXb/GwWY5YZ0xeQGcMZ7wxnq2qQVO22RIiV1csdZbR66rekIm5C4 w5C6BXifv+U6eFt4yw369xei12PUdfVcyQXY25YdQCfKjNvURRSbeqk2WIO03s54CFI/ zHXY9HFQrNr4CgJs9f8IYps4PNtRj92YwajKAeyq7MExusnvCsQjfD6AXPavQbg1cyz5 +aQ+avc3GHo362S7HKTCbL9TSu5Vk4/HOICJ5/WLmkURaK15LF8JbM2RUAzalGtLOrat 9wfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8S5oLMQSTdQCKc+9uwGsLsrS7H/7eQm4+XAjouFyrL4iow3JvGvh9xyR211+Tcy6ArXzP
X-Received: by 10.50.41.38 with SMTP id c6mr31170032igl.47.1388017114730; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v2sm35364270igz.3.2013.12.25.16.18.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52BB75B3.1000009@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 19:17:55 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <900A1E2059ADB149B905E3C8FA0046A62C82365151@FHDP1LUMXC7V23.us.one.verizon.com> <52BA718E.1030105@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <billb991ds2sgkhnbsucs4df18oe7evgc4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <billb991ds2sgkhnbsucs4df18oe7evgc4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Sanjay Mishra's choices
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 00:18:40 -0000

On 25/12/2013 8:13 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> On 2013/12/24 23:44, Mishra, Sanjay wrote:
>>> 3.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>>>
>>> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 10.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>>>
>>> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
>>>
>>> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
>>>
>>> o   Do not support possible outcome of VP8 and H.261 as MTI
>> Given that you are in favor of 3, and surprised at the NO here, and even
>> more surprised at your justification. What's the problem if, under this
>> option, some entities (not you) decide to implement VP8 and H.261, and
>> communicate among themselves using either of these two?
>>
>> It looks to me like there's either a fundamental issue for you that
>> nobody else has mentioned yet, or there is a misunderstanding, and it
>> would be great if you could clarify.
> The answers are insisting that H.264 encoding and decoding are supported
> and there are a number of participants who have expressed this sentiment
> for various reasons. One being interoperability with legacy systems that
> support only H.264 without transcoding the video data. I don't think the
> choices here are surprising.
>
> (Also note that, by the looks of it, some might think that if users have
> to download and install a "plugin" separate from the core product, that
> is enough to satisfy a mandatory-to-implement requirement, so I would
> not read too much into people choosing options to require more than one
> codec with possible licensing problems.)

i think we need to clarify this point. As far as I know, no legacy 
system supports WebRTC natively. This means that people will be sticking 
some sort of WebRTC adapter in between native WebRTC peers and the 
legacy devices. Under this scenario, won't you need to transform the 
video in some way along the way?

Gili