Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement

Il 01/11/2013 21:19, Lorenzo Miniero ha scritto:
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:43:52 -0500
> Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/13 13:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>
>>> We congratulate Cisco on their intention to make an open source H.264
>>> codec available and usable by the community. We look forward to seeing
>>> the result of this effort.
>>>
>>>
>>> Google still believes that VP8 - a freely available, fully open,
>>> high-quality video codec that you can download, compile for your
>>> platform, include in your binary, distribute and put into production
>>> today - is the best choice of a Mandatory to Implement video codec for
>>> the WebRTC effort.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Harald that VP8 is a better codec than H.264 baseline in a
>> number of important ways.
>>
>> But I also want to reiterate that having an MTI codec has never been
>> about choosing the best codec or even a good codec. It's about choosing
>> an emergency backup codec-of-last-resort. It's about having one single
>> mandated codec that everyone has in their back pocket in case nothing
>> else works.
>>
>> The core of RTCWEB is about session *negotiation*. Endpoints will
>> negotiate the best codec they have in common. Once the next generation
>> of codecs come out, this "best codec in common" will only be the MTI if
>> they were about to fail anyway.
>>
>> So it doesn't have to be good.
>>
>> It just has to be better than failure.
>>
>> /a
>
>
> Those are good points. But were that the case, we could have sticked with an older codec, one that didn't have to carry the burden of royalty fees: a choice that several people have often discarded exactly because it wasn't good enough.

I could not agree more.

>
> That's also why I, as it is probably redundant to restate, actually support Harald's view. My concern is that, with H.264, MTI will not mean *a* codec in a negotiatiated session, which is what we all agree RTCWEB still is, or should be. It will be *the* codec, because several implementations, including two currently missing browsers (whenever they'll start to care), will *only* provide H.264, thus forcing everyone to comply with it. Who's going to do anything else, when you know the only way to reach all browsers is *the* codec? And for a lot of people, including me, there's currently (or actually, will be) only one way to do so, which is a plugin (in RTCWEB, ironic) that may or may not be available two months after we start using it.

+1 for VP8 as MTI.

Alessandro

>
> I'm at the wrong edge of the knife, and I don't like it.
>
> Lorenzo
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

-- 
Alessandro Amirante, Ph.D.
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione
Universita' degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II"
Via Claudio, 21 - 80125 Napoli - Italy

Phone:    +39 081 7683821
Fax:      +39 081 19730464
E-mail:   alessandro.amirante@unina.it
Skype-ID: alessandro.amirante
Web:      http://wpage.unina.it/alessandro.amirante

Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8