Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion

Simon Pietro Romano <> Wed, 13 March 2013 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE0111E80A6 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.178
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_LWHUGE=1.54, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id utovLMhevHwR for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A33D21F8C1A for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2DNtLwg000789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:55:23 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F89EA3D1-4809-4927-AB1F-D54BB85D3083"
From: Simon Pietro Romano <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:55:21 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A different perspective on the video codec MTI discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:55:33 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

> I have one more thing to say - speaking now as a developer.
> As some of you may know, I recently returned to Cisco as CTO of the cloud collaboration group, which is responsible for Webex. Webex was one of the first services to do voice and video on the web, using plugins of course. For our business, a key requirement is interoperability with other video systems in the Cisco portfolio, including our video clients and telepresence units. Those are all based on H.264. Consequently, much as I would like to avoid the need for a plugin, the benefits of eliminating the plugin do not outweigh the drawbacks of having to transcode from VP8 to H.264. If IETF selects VP8 as the MTI codec, this will make it dramatically more difficult and expensive for us to use webRTC. If H.264 is the MIT codec, it will make it much easier for us to use webRTC. 

This statement looks quite 'ironic'. Seems like you're asking people to stick to H.264 because otherwise you can experience issues in keeping on doing your company's business with no modifications to your legacy stuff. I don't think this is the right thing to ask to an 'open standards' community like the IETF. Let me just tell you that there are plenty of young 'iconoclastic' companies out there which are looking at WebRTC/RTCWeb as a huge opportunity to enter the market by qualifying themselves for adopting cutting-edge technologies (like VP8) and are not afraid of putting their hands 'inside' the network by building rtcweb-enabled middle-boxes which provide functions going far beyond the original browser-to-browser use case.

My 2 cents,

> Thx,
> Jonathan R.
> -- 
> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

                           				      ( O-O )
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /