Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

[Mohammed Raad <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

If I have understood the content of the story at the link you provided
correctly, either you run through (what the story calls) "relay servers" or
you are exposed to a large patent licensing fee. Is that a correct
understanding?

Best Regards,
Mohammed


On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:04:06PM +0900, David Singer wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2013, at 5:33 , Mohammed Raad <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > There isn't much new in the arguments for and against VP8 vs H.264. Its
> > > clear that there are concerns that are beyond how well each codec
> performs
> > > and whether or not it is free. Although I recognize that the
> transcoding
> > > option does not address the P2P use case, I do think that the goal of
> > > interoperability can be better achieved through a two phase approach.
> The
> > > first is enabling end-points to inter-operate through the availability
> of
> > > transcoding from the service provider. The second is to make one of the
> > > codecs the defacto MTI because of the its higher level of adoption.
> Yes, we
> > > may never get to a single MTI if we follow this path but at least we
> will
> > > have endpoints inter-operating. Besides, there are multiple other
> > > difficulties in getting seamless P2P communications working all the
> time,
> > > so I would suggest focusing on the service provider centered use case
> > > first.
> >
> > You know, you're right.
> >
> > We could suggest or even recommend both, and mandate you must implement
> at
> > least one of the two. That would identify precisely two interoperability
> > points in an otherwise much larger space, at least, and make it fairly
> simple
> > for those that can and wish to, to offer transcoding, since the two ends
> are
> > now defined.  It's not ideal, but it might be better than saying nothing
> at
> > all.
>
> I thought the performance and other problems with forcing _everyone_
> through
> a central relay server were well known?  I would have thought David at
> least
> would be somewhat aware of them.  Adding that to a guaranteed interop
> failure
> outcome might be a cunning plan, but I wouldn't call it a good one.
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/
>
> The whole point of a MTI codec is there will be no "otherwise larger space"
> if we choose one that all implementors are free to use.
>
>   Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>



-- 
Mohammed Raad, PhD.
Partner
RAADTECH CONSULTING
P.O. Box 113
Warrawong
NSW 2502 Australia
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]