Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
bryandonnovan@gmail.com Fri, 22 November 2013 16:48 UTC
Return-Path: <bryandonnovan@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 E68E31AE1F3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:48:22 -0800 (PST)
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 t4IjTqToe_7Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x230.google.com (mail-vb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E1D1AE3EE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:48:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x16so1034303vbf.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:47:55 -0800 (PST)
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=EktRLO48LXaF5Xlk1hbouysJ+fqB0JRgTo4rhRr+u1I=; b=DhstUYQxwIsHF1Vi3+rGGdxbkRVgZF8g/uN0xkD4pVE0vzPISlqeZ9ZgRYvoaX0+zc gl9XtaPRdlmJf3DCkuElXvs78stjJyvb8Cy99eR4tPp39KyXjflOyXq+kG/wDr5DcliJ 4sZYtBtQsRR7x8osNLogJ33PcCu/5qAMHyTTbvyQ85ZHZXvqrOtoCcTkQckr6mASrgXe bgEtdnICV8BOSxMArZmpFLqONIxOw/KTmLaaJlH4/xQvu6h7FjJCxFjfld4T4tz1/uuA 4sPvzqjnS+XTQmZLCDk+r06g8nKQlpSyIO4AjJA88B2IqyQa0RFMsOGEXZWpfR1UTSmv WKgA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.160.130 with SMTP id xk2mr10218764vdb.24.1385138875508; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.231.233 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:47:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D2FF0AC-74D6-4083-B8A0-15FE0B3C7911@phonefromhere.com>
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7DD@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F30C1.8040208@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <CAHp8n2mYKgrpRDmC1h76X2CWYpOZcaKAxtjCS8fzcYpiYPwLnQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D2FF0AC-74D6-4083-B8A0-15FE0B3C7911@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:47:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMwTW+iR58vbu8=5d0OSgt2jtU4ri63821LHh+hPjwc5o3suaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: bryandonnovan@gmail.com
To: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160caaea3bbe104ebc6c660"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:48:23 -0000
SDP can express sendonly and recvonly streams, so there is no inherent problem with assymetry of codec choice. But it would certainly complicate things. I would be in favor of a solution that allowed anyone (all browsers) to decode both VP8 and h.264, no matter what they are capable of encoding. In my 1-to-many conference software, all streams are unidirectional. On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:40 AM, tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote: > Surely this flies in the face of the whole O/A model, which imposes a sort > of symmetry on the endpoints ? > (Unless there is some arcane SDP FRACK at play here). > > T. > > > On 22 Nov 2013, at 08:24, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I think this has value. It might bring apple and Microsoft to the table, > since decoding-only is often the less patent-affecting part. > > Silvia. > On 22 Nov 2013 02:24, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > >> On 2013/11/22 5:02, Stefan Slivinski wrote: >> >>> I in no way intended to suggest a specific implementation of a video >>> codec. My question was around whether we are voting on requiring decoders >>> (my assumption) or both encoders and decoders >>> >> >> My understanding is that all the proposals in each instance mean "both >> encoder and decoder". So as an example, a proposal of "MUST implement both >> VP8 and H.264" means "MUST implement both VP8 encoder and decoder, and >> H.264 encoder and decoder". >> >> Your question brings up other choices. For example, interoperability >> would be satisfied by something like "MUST implement both VP8 and H.264 >> decoders, and MUST implement at least one of VP8 and H.264 encoders". >> >> One condition for this to work is the possibility of asymmetric >> communication, i.e. if side A implemented only a VP8 encoder, and side B >> only implemented a H.264 encoder, then traffic A->B would be VP8, whereas >> traffic B->A would be H.264. I don't know the in's and out's of the >> negotiation and protocol machinery to confirm or deny that this is possible. >> >> Choices like the one above definitely open new horizons for Eric's >> selection generator. But frankly speaking, except for the specific choice >> of "MUST implement both VP8 and H.264 decoders, and MUST implement at least >> one of VP8 and H.264 encoders", which is less onerous than "MUST implement >> both VP8 and H.264", but still interoperable, I don't see any choices with >> different requirements for encoders and decoders that would make sense. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Basil Mohamed Gohar [mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 01:56 PM >>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org<rtcweb@ietf.org> >>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process >>> >>> On 11/21/2013 02:31 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote: >>> >>>> I'm a new comer, so just a brief intro: I have a background developing >>>> real time video codecs for embedded devices so I'm in a position to comment >>>> at a technical level within this group >>>> >>>> For clarity purposes the proposed alternatives in Magnus' email on nov >>>> 18th; are we strictly speaking about decoders? Historically mandatory >>>> requirements are they relate to video compatibility define just the >>>> decoders. Obviously if there is only a single mandatory video decoder this >>>> implies a mandatory encoder, however in the case where there are 2 >>>> mandatory decoders only a single encoder is technically required. >>>> >>>> Clarifying this is fairly important because in the case of both h264 >>>> and vp8 (and in the future vp9 and h265) the decoder complexity is fairly >>>> low and hardware acceleration is not critical but in the case of the >>>> encoders where the complexity can be 3x or worse, hardware acceleration >>>> becomes increasingly important >>>> >>>> Stefan >>>> >>> >>> What is being specified as MTI is a format, and not a specific >>> implementation. So, MTI will not take the form of "OpenH264" or >>> "libvpx", but rather, "H.264 Constrainted Baseline Profile" or "VP8". >>> >>> The same was done for the MTI audio codec, which is Opus, not *libopus*, >>> which is one specific implementation of the codec. >>> >>> There was a suggestion that the WG also offer a reference implementation >>> of the MTI codec choice, but that seems like it won't happen, nor is it >>> really the purpose of the WG to do so. We are picking from >>> already-existing and implemented formats in the first place. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ashish V. Thapliyal
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Paul Giralt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video co… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)