Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions

Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk> Tue, 16 October 2012 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <neils@vipadia.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 355B021F8848 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1A8Hi-RUJZPq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5342921F8843 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so4752962lam.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=YD1Hn4VU8yd1PLL0SByfBlIBrz73q5UpcOsNkFpSNRg=; b=VIwkJy2RMwEsltDfxs4uCQ4BKJfDNL1kpzQfVPBifmcxFkfPEqPjLE7uM5kxU3rlFi B6htNDJHn+mx9KwpBD6Xe1akfd3ZtRoq/wE4VmuDQSkidUE/ixhbifLAFHaRTOF/EA2q Zbt9NW5YvVyq2ZlP+y76Yo4yBnyRsdRFxkV5Lfa4bOcy872VJcmsTActfMEYwB1zAC3y GBdENbX/Eh2VwOQiYEMEqsR0l8T/stUtyfNhwYQ4hQaqAonrcX2lTYnp7dMrREkXLAWC ogJyplOsUddoI2HFxmUAl3iQlrAAqzYTMHm81nvBaA7FuGeouWsTOyKELP47MTAjQ1Dk rhMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.25.161 with SMTP id d1mr5550080lbg.118.1350394537931; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: neils@vipadia.com
Received: by 10.114.70.76 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <507D4302.9050108@ericsson.com>
References: <507D4302.9050108@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:35:37 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MF62c6SCzWR7xNe9dL-ULxo9coA
Message-ID: <CABRok6=xTv08si4iahN+i=LNrJtpJD6s3de3HQVCr=aLEPT8ww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQny034jvj0qxc3HRkGhWUO2sbG8Wa4BYbIpcprUUpUMtBCSOM65985gjCHtToC3y8hQGCb5
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Video Codec contributions
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, 16 Oct 2012 13:35:40 -0000

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> WG,
>
> The Video Codec selection internet draft to RTCWEB WG I have seen are
> the following four:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dbenham-webrtc-videomti-00.txt
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec/
>
> Please review information and proposals and lets start discussing them
> on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting in Atlanta.

Something that concerns me about video codecs is the availability of a
scalable coding profile. Many plugins that we are trying to replace
with WebRTC appear to be starting to make use of scalable coding
techniques to enable efficient multi-party calls. To encourage the
replacement of such plugins the codec specified in WebRTC should offer
the ability to match what is best practice today.

I understand that H.264 has Annex G, and that VP8 has something
similar. Are there any issues around making this MTI for either codec
that would help drive a decision?

Neil