Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@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 EF62D1ADEA1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 SjZLpF8m13Z2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDFC1ADBE5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wo20so1530074obc.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:16 -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=2CyxzvWf3QuOXwGDz2OihVdr4kS3M+iH1zzQBjMFouo=; b=ZX8qnkfQ6bE7Ck3xt6zMJbkRpotddhg2Gq78YJxRJ4rST8qcH+bs4oGTGAozk8gWKl 45Lye/E6VJS4jBn8lTBtTf91azNYs3SVlwha/PMfOvbaMGJtLch4wMOtTzThJGHonMRT W1//kkcFsakK1ywjjhJa9Y1KU3oPU2GVcmFr0L1ZRq+nMGGsH/iDQt1Wz+ClrNi/kFeg SkgdC9EFgRF21X5t4cGoOYtqPzip7JDeiVp6ep4r9WBvfkaMvTw5yORhIbuUYmduFdCf 7eLUkJN0qp/eh4TLVi2vlbd0BoVQfEVAlFei2ur0qNYlBHCIIRopPMXInY5eUM7a5J/K 9KKw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.177.66 with SMTP id co2mr275794oec.85.1385137456217; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.164 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.68.164 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <528F30C1.8040208@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7DD@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F30C1.8040208@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mYKgrpRDmC1h76X2CWYpOZcaKAxtjCS8fzcYpiYPwLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6b03a0b0b6a04ebc67200"
Cc: 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 16:24:28 -0000
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 >
- 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)