Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Sun, 17 November 2013 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 7CCA711E91AF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khL5SJ1zV72L for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x230.google.com (mail-bk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5750311E84FA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v10so1752283bkz.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XqiY0LZaVKbBxXREqC/Xd8dtL88+nqp2RiThOUtlopU=; b=nxoXquxU5PNnQ2vaG5BiY/f5o8xoIkaDoBXPP1ofPX1U8hS/dJWJvPM74Ehfb8dkMZ +Akd6W6nLBAUIeaeLDQviRMBfpaYAcFODEV5cp8dsD/qtPaIgeUk+c08fpfHIgTYwCjc N8avRNkkThZcupYcvDYe0dRGW/qK+9VrMYrk6YAKdmPZKH2eamWxoUAX+945soeM695l xSH0UNAvEr+NpxhvzAAr8MCydH53JrWkxBvg2i8z7RxFKEDkreX7Ns3cdnNM/vofIjTp AP9vIf6vcxyxmGhkuyqYDs1QXNgkyfWWAVLMdUa4yHo+NYM2trSp5LGS6cw153fDWxKI QmaQ==
X-Received: by 10.204.173.6 with SMTP id n6mr9528207bkz.5.1384718046429; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (dslb-188-101-189-061.pools.arcor-ip.net. [188.101.189.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id on10sm14212222bkb.13.2013.11.17.11.54.04 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:54:03 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:54:40 -0000

Hello,

just wondering if something like

"9. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST at 
least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both H.264 
and VP8 MUST implement H.261."

has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations supporting 
both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use on of those - 
H.261 should never be relevant there.

It appears that all implementors are willing to implement either H.264 
or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means that negotiation 
failure regarding a high-performance codec is a possiblity. In this case 
H.261 is actually useful so that basic video calls can still be 
established (for instance, I guess deaf people may always appreciate a 
video connection, as long as sign language can be transmitted).


Maik


Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller:
> Hi,
> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only H.264 or
> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their
> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change anytime in the
> next few years.  Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items 1 and 2
> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by focusing
> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options.
> The following alternatives has been proposed:
>
>  1. All entities MUST support H.264
>  2. All entities MUST support VP8
>  3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>  4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>     support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>  5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>  6. All entities MUST support H.261
>  7. There is no MTI video codec
>  8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
>     least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> Regards,
> Jeremy Fuller
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>