Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com> Sun, 19 October 2014 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <agouaillard@gmail.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 636ED1A1BBE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 2EI4uYhH8gTZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 434D31A1BC3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a3so2585951oib.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7dzoTs6CkzSGimUZl2sn/UuXgGPazVxXGy42u2S9taY=; b=yA8iKUVKaHG9WMQTyXu9xRyChaS4yZ+0jdPiPAx+swaJDpd8C+CIvX0fTHarzJy94Y mDxYidJiCq85MpmU+hrIiXzK0/Ur+ScyrBFrZARlWRW0t/Xz6NHbv+muBNem841SJAeD jaLOgZsq+KdWeNiVBpV4Fm2i58TkZSQxABh4F9Aznay2CUmAiXTpv3SgVd20y1bJujTQ 7BnS95iOrOK+Guefp+T7/T/6Jz0iA+z/RcGS6/obXqujIZJ19rb+DIZEJMUcfBnnCNhC PrEvjghAlbosgD7AKBxvkPc8dD/lz7vAoUcsYp7qGKVA8HUDbD0oAGUYJCn0X4D53ty0 mdkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.102.162 with SMTP id m34mr17360211oik.37.1413735203621; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.66.5 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <544117FB.6050706@alvestrand.no> <CAHgZEq6GTk5ei+LLpWPM5povpieompD66VU9F+u7--WJVgapaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+23+fGWnWd0QEeCmZ=6BmJkPrUVW6cZ0jwmXA+fM88=_+_NWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dugTtfLhk0VuJOk7OPEonGBApMjY93EZocH90RbX6X22w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:13:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHgZEq5t4-Cot9XkU_pfyfi0TBCUxfT79ZvpiLW=X5_KUQh5dA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140a9be9e52360505c8e061
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/k6AFr7ZKgXFwqYXVKyKGDzvMFi4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:13:27 -0000

@jonathan,

while you are right and availability of 264 implementation or hardware
acceleration has improved, it has never been reported as a problem in the
previous pool by anyone. The 264 royalties, and the VP8 IP risks were,
AFAIR, the main reasons used by individuals to justify their positions.
Today, nothing has changed with respect to those two items (even though
providing open264 royalties and absorbing the license cost for some
platforms might have been a set in the right direction). This is why I
think the conditions are not met for a consensus to be reached.

Alex.


On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the technology"
>
> [BA] Specifying an MTI encoder/decoder is not sufficient for
> interoperability.  It is also necessary to specify the transport in enough
> detail to allow independent implementations that interoperate well enough
> to be usable in a wide variety of scenarios, including wireless networks
> where loss is commonly experienced.
>
> We made the mistake of having an MTI discussion previously with not enough
> details on that subject, particularly with respect to H.264.
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-video sections 4.2 - 4.4 remain sketchy at best.
>
> So if we are to have the discussion again, it should occur in the context
> of detailed specifications and interoperability reports.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm in favor of taking another run at this.
>>
>> The working group has repeatedly said that an MTI codec is something we
>> need to produce. And its one of the issues holding up wider adoption of the
>> technology (not the only one for sure).
>>
>> And things have changed since the last meeting, a year ago now (November
>> in Vancouver). Cisco's open264 plugin shipped and now just recently is
>> integrated into Firefox. iOS8 shipped with APIs for H264. There are other
>> things worth noting. Will this change the minds of everyone? Surely not.
>> Will it sway enough for us to achieve rough consensus? Maybe. IMHO - worth
>> finding out.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <
>> agouaillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to not having MTI codec discussion unless some progress has been made
>>> on VP8 at MPEG. Any news on that? I'm sharing harald's  feeling that there
>>> was no change on the members position.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2014 12:02 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually
>>>>> make progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
>>>>> actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The big argument for an MTI is actually the one stated in -overview: It
>>>> guards against interoperability failure.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to have an ecosystem where one can field a box, connect it
>>>> to everything else, and run well for *some* level of "well" - and I would
>>>> prefer that ecosystem to be one where it's possible to field the box
>>>> without making prior arrangements with anyone about licenses.
>>>>
>>>> This argument hasn't changed one whit since last time we discussed it.
>>>> And I don't see much movement on the specifics of the proposals either.
>>>>
>>>> We'll have to interoperate well with the codecs we field. So using some
>>>> time to discuss draft-ietf-rtcweb-video seems to make sense. (And 4.1 isn't
>>>> finished either. There's one sentence that needs to be removed.)
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say I'd be happy to not discuss this in Honolulu. But I'd
>>>> prefer to re-discuss based on the knowledge that some significant players
>>>> have actually changed their minds.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, I don't see signs that any of the poll respondents have
>>>> said "I have changed my mind".
>>>>
>>>> Harald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than actually
>>>>>>> finishing a specification that can be independently implemented by
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> browser vendors? (A specification that we are nowhere near having,
>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>> I can tell)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
>>>>>> it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
>>>>>> suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
>>>>>> our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
>>>>>> agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
>>> President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>> jdrosen@jdrosen.net
>> http://www.jdrosen.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTO - Temasys Communications, S'pore / Mountain View
President - CoSMo Software, Cambridge, MA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -