Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.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 C61261AE1C4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 Wp5_I_RiBjqE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-x231.google.com (mail-ea0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7147C1AE207 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n15so77717ead.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:08 -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=CEBXLjNqWHr2DkbSrI54+i4KHFmYReVkmidbhsZgUcQ=; b=ZkUqK6mGbXP2iHH1epaew/GCwB4ciFXmEdMe8DrE1QZW5CsDyHgRYvbn5g+26rOZFv 5d7zVcDPNuhCmW9Z5/mHkz4ZrWsu7uxEMjwZGRlNzH+MUPLRzZuaiwZFWl3ejpRRQnB/ N7iS49MPORbEsFFNNAj9XkfcAIp3RLjO8GieJbp7RQFwWuOf6tF6lCIK9C7WuiViBjvY 66bg0dU4CH0mX0N0E8M6YDbKh07ylgbcRXxWqOQnc0uf4zLzK0aqMU7UGPJvZE5rvQ3o 0kLq7jucZynj9NTyYaogvtiTqJSFwAcWEnyiL0ZNBgxfNW2sc9IQFPI7GKBc62E0DqEI bMhQ==
X-Received: by 10.14.109.1 with SMTP id r1mr10816704eeg.32.1385062028206; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:08 -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 o47sm73213399eem.21.2013.11.21.11.27.06 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528E5E89.8040706@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:27:05 +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> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com> <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl> <528C79AD.10608@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl> <528D0355.3090603@googlemail.com> <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com> <528E4139.3050808@googlemail.com> <2B458AB3-A219-4F3C-B393-8F0969C2CC08@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <2B458AB3-A219-4F3C-B393-8F0969C2CC08@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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, 21 Nov 2013 19:27:18 -0000

Btw, should any occurrence of "H.264" in the current list of options be 
substituted with "H.264 CBP"? Perhaps it is best to be very clear on the 
profile which should be implemented.

Thanks,

Maik

Am 21.11.2013 20:20, schrieb David Singer:
> Chairs
>
> can we add this as an option to the formal list, so we get formal feedback on its acceptability, please?
>
> “Like option ??, pick at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.263}”
>
>
> I think this may be the best (maybe only) way to tease out how much risk people perceive.
>
> Many thanks
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:22 , Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Cleary H.263 is preferable from an engineering standpoint (as is, e.g., MPEG-1 Part 2): better performance, more deployments. The central question is, however, if those can actually be implemented without some sort of licensing.
>>
>> If they can: Aweseome! However, this may not be determinable without a review by people who are knowledgeable in the field of IPR, i.e., "actual lawyers". I understand that H.263 is not yet old enough to automatically be considered "safe" (and neither is MPEG-1 Part 2, although it is closer).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Maik
>>
>> Am 20.11.2013 20:42, schrieb David Singer:
>>> I think we should think hard about H.263 instead of H.261 as the third fallback.  Why?
>>>
>>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> H.263 was first published in March 1996, so it's 17 years old.  The restrictions (e.g. on picture size) are no WORSE than H.261.  Yes, more recent amendments deal with this (and a plethora of other issues), so we’d need to settle on which of those are mandatory (the usual profiling discussion).
>>>
>>> There are 34 records in the patent database against H.261, mostly from 1989 but one as recent as 2005 (though that is a re-file).  That's 2.2 (reciprocity), as was one other I checked.
>>>
>>> Rather surprisingly, there are only 31 against H.263!  The most recent is 2011, and is also option 2.  Most are 1997-2001.
>>>
>>>
>>> On this quick glance, H.263 appears no worse than H.261. IANAL (as I am sure you have all noticed).
>>>
>>>
>>> H.263 is much more widely supported and mandated.  It has been mandated in the 3GPP specs for years (for lots of services, including videoconf), and is effectively the fallback codec today in the industry, as I understand.  It was ubiquitous in video telephony for years, and I suspect many of those systems still ship it.
>>>
>>> So, would “MUST implement at least two of (H.264, VP8, H.263)” work?
>>>
>>> (I am asking the question, not even answering on behalf of my company, yet.  Let’s get the issues on the table.)
>>>
>>>
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>