Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

On 10/19/2014 05:43 PM, Bernard Aboba 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. 

Bernard,

I think this is, to a large degree, codec independent.

We have demonstrated interoperability on VP8 between Firefox and Chrome,
and usage of various mechanisms for congestion control and repair of
packet loss being applied in live services.

So it can't be all bad.....

>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>                     <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                         On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman
>                         <matthew@matthew.at
>                         <mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>                     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 rtcweb mailing list
>                 rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             rtcweb mailing list
>             rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto: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 <http://sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard>
>
>          *
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rtcweb mailing list
>         rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.
>     jdrosen@jdrosen.net <mailto:jdrosen@jdrosen.net>
>     http://www.jdrosen.net
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.