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

Alessandro Amirante <alessandro.amirante@unina.it> Sat, 02 November 2013 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <alessandro.amirante@unina.it>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5AF11E8119 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oZX1u+9FAm9W for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.unina.it (smtp2.unina.it [192.132.34.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4366611E80EC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 03:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] ([151.77.218.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp2.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA2AATsi015425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 11:10:31 +0100
Message-ID: <5274CF96.4050203@unina.it>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:10:30 +0100
From: Alessandro Amirante <alessandro.amirante@unina.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com> <52740478.6030109@nostrum.com> <20131101211922.3ed7833d@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <20131101211922.3ed7833d@rainpc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:10:39 -0000

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