Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?

Hi,

I guess it's a spelling error, but based on your text below another thing that separates 10 and 11 is that 10 talks about H.261 while 11 talks about H.263.

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: 25. marraskuuta 2013 16:20
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Alternatives 10 and 11: Merge?

Hi,

I would like to draw your attention to the following two alternative:

10. 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.

11. MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.263}

I would note that 10 and 11 are equivalent on the MUST level. The only thing that separates 10 out is the SHOULD implement both H.264 and VP8.

Thus my question to the WG and especially the ones proposing 10 and 11.
Would anyone disagree with removing alternative 10. in favor of 11.?

Just trying to avoid having two alternatives that are extremely close to each other. My thinking is that if we manage to select any MTI, i.e.
MUST statements, we can discuss what SHOULDs and RECOMMENDATIONs that we want to make in addition.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund
(As WG chair)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb