Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
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 C55831AE47A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cDHU6zPWNFfV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22f.google.com (mail-vb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C364A1AE45C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id w8so196949vbj.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:18:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1EApBlgqzGM0aRWsiPrI26GUclzww98HSLaAlMdWNdk=; b=XQDmPbrJGofRCp+jxeVkaBT8X22dTjwbwQMua1i908jFZRpfVlKR/jV6IGq4sSpzAD FwN9bIW1XFqqX4hxp2+Btny28MlcEwnP3k6dHnRzW1lQCuyl6FRyO6m+7yOd7pNdUoBW 8e5bpvim8vp3/5jSnBfFd2NYnAmGBnjVOCKCY7xu+purnlCEQfo0RjXzi4zlOCGp+kTH +LQ6rjEl/kbFK6EPGQY8Wvr/s4IdL7lnQOJmE1r566Zb+/jnjIzzYB3Lel4J5nFRwhBk LtTv9bkbktrkuwW6FmGNz0AkIRyM0CXDYdgMQ2HAnX75+EIyfPOgE2yP/oTG19qTEcCV hUXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1EApBlgqzGM0aRWsiPrI26GUclzww98HSLaAlMdWNdk=; b=H5HzV7NJ7iJXTNJJ7zklyFYMOMM9kaQCHTqTM2/laHZByfevtzCz86nTgp08u+UCx1 edQkmZYTuNNUuHhckxtqplrFMZTCqeF4bR4UA/6i02gpRu2BdMr1LERrOmToSz9ZlRIw VVYzR1fbTqlJXGDv09dCt80kjcMr21dtyEPu65XPdC41i3K+5n31vX1pQRk91XThoLWt h4Md7Taw5Pa05QUYYqNkcCtE0du68e2xage02UpiX1DtYfE3cumlvGgfmsqgQssofpGA Go+jGo29Y8YSkt1iGNSKgHaEVWi5t55CLxBxRjWyblvXJp7l0vFwNgPpFM6gqy88blAq xS5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1Y/A3ixJhrMahEBTZlJ5N66IJG6beHzaSdxDU7wa08QRLGOmNG+3cag3+b/Jtl35DlUpNIwywkI7eTW4fLuex7Wi3iqA3qiwsR4il/+HsteWcsbaJdA1mASk2Z1kzlnBY57ysC7XqiknHCBeGk2MkCi9rRDkE3Hz7cThjQFBLDjcCvsvWORfvlF/RU6G6sD4EwJgq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.36.14 with SMTP id m14mr2199263vdj.79.1389287895737; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.24.73 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:18:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:18:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsD+w+3gwa06GLG1Lg8vZH78+xcLn2nnr-NKRT_1zdNz+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3079bfec84429d04ef8ccbec"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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, 09 Jan 2014 17:18:33 -0000

All entities MUST support H.264

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
   We are discussing not just an IETF standard but a Web standard.  Web
   standards must take an even stronger stance against legal straitjackets
   because usage is enormous in scale and unpredictably creative in nature.

All entities MUST support VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES.  I think
   remaining opposition to VP8 MTI is based in large part on a perception of
   risk that will quickly dissipate.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  NO
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
    Prefer #4.

Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at
least one of H.264 and VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  NO
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
    An ecosystem where all the large browser providers support both codecs
   would be good for small providers of webrtc-enabled browsers, programs, and
   devices, who might only be able to ship one codec.  However, this option
   makes no distinction, e.g. requiring every copy of Gnome Epiphany and KDE
   Konqueror to include h.264 enc and dec in order to be compliant.  A "MUST
   support one, SHOULD support both" might be acceptable.

All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  ACCEPTABLE
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support H.261

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  YES, BUT I reject
   the phrasing of this question, because I believe the option on the mailing
   list was raised without resolving the distinction between H.261 and MPEG-1
   Part 2.  I believe that MPEG-1 Part 2 is a suitable MTI codec for rtcweb.
    It was completed 24 years ago, and finalized 22 years ago, so its IPR
   status is clear.  It has widespread hardware and software support, is very
   low complexity to decode in software, and has compression efficiency
   similar to DVD video.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

There is no MTI video codec

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  ACCEPTABLE
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
    Sometimes it is smarter to admit failure than to pretend success.

All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one
of H.264 and VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  YES, with the
   caveat of #6 (MPEG-1 Part 2).
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support Theora

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  YES.  Theora,
   a.k.a. VP3.2, is similar in techniques and performance to MPEG-4
Part 2 or H.263+.
    Its long-standing broad deployment, deliberately old-fashioned internal
   design, and MPEG LA's "granting Google a license to techniques that may be
   essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression
   technologies", combine to make its IPR status exceptionally clear.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  Yes, with the
   caveat of #6 (MPEG-1 Part 2).
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  NO.  I'm not aware
   of any IPR benefit conferred by H.263 over H.264.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  NO
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support H.263

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  NO
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  YES
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  ACCEPTABLE.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
    A decode-only MTI doesn't accomplish much, but I suppose it's better than
   nothing.

All entities MUST support Motion JPEG

   1.

   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  ACCEPTABLE.  It
   wouldn't be interoperable video, but at least it would get us interoperable
   slideshows.
   2.

   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: