Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.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 268A31AE2AE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 csS-x_KUltpi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0291AE2A0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B96B0659959 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:56:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528FC513.4020903@librevideo.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:56:51 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FB79F.8090405@gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E670F@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FBC43.5000409@librevideo.org> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E671A@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E671A@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:57:05 -0000

On 11/22/2013 03:44 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> Thank you for the link.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is H.261 will harm the proliferation of webrtc far more than it will help.  This is purely a technical argument speaking to quality and error resiliency.
> 
> Has anyone listed the concerns surrounding H.264 and have these been raised with mpeg-la to see if they can make adjustments to the license agreement.  They have certainly done so in the past.

Believe it or not, the MPEG-LA is currently trying to establish a
royalty-free subset of H.264 called "Constrained Baseline Profile",
which is very similar to the most commonly-used subset of H.264 features
out there.

The problem is, it's not done yet, and there's no indication whether or
not it will be successful or not.  This would require all existing
stakeholders in H.264 licensing to agree to this royalty-free variant
for it to matter.

There's another effort to do the same with one using MPEG-1 as a base.

The problem is, none of these formally exist in royalty-free forms as of
yet.  Everything else we've discussed, though, does, including H.261.

And, for what it's worth, I disagree about H.261.  Yes, H.264 and/or VP8
(and a whole list of other codecs) will look *better*, but I think being
able to communicate via video over H.261 is better than not being able
to all.

And we are at a point where "not at all" is going to happen because the
WG is effectively split over using VP8 and H.264.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org