IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Fri, 20 December 2013 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 44FB21AF252 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:35:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_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 kNUoynjSH1z2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0242.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7E1AF290 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2PR03CA032.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.234.153) by BY2PR03MB205.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.36.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.842.7; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:35:15 +0000
Received: from BL2FFO11FD029.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::140) by BY2PR03CA032.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:2c2c::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.842.7 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:35:15 +0000
Received: from mail.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD029.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.837.10 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:35:14 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.46]) by TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.180]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.002; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:34:45 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHO9QObn//sJVvSTUCzxK/qQYS/0Jpce1sI
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:34:43 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4844192FEBA@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4844192FEBATK5EX14MBXC297r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(189002)(199002)(54316002)(47446002)(79102001)(56816005)(90146001)(4396001)(20776003)(33656001)(83072002)(81342001)(65816001)(71186001)(87936001)(66066001)(74502001)(74876001)(81542001)(46102001)(63696002)(69226001)(87266001)(80976001)(76786001)(74706001)(53806001)(44976005)(31966008)(85852003)(16236675002)(83322001)(85306002)(85326001)(84326002)(50986001)(74662001)(47976001)(49866001)(47736001)(76796001)(77982001)(51856001)(81816001)(59766001)(6806004)(77096001)(74366001)(54356001)(2656002)(76482001)(80022001)(512934002)(81686001)(56776001)(55846006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB205; H:mail.microsoft.com; CLIP:131.107.125.37; FPR:; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0066D63CE6
X-OriginatorOrg: skype.net
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives
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, 20 Dec 2013 03:35:26 -0000

I am answering this straw poll under protest based on my earlier objections to the poll.

In addition, I believe the poll is flawed due to the lack of direct participation by the legal departments that are actually driving this decision.



  1.  All entities MUST support H.264

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license terms around H.264

  2.  All entities MUST support VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: There are entities that are unable to accept the legal risk of shipping VP8

  3.  All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license terms around H.264 and there are entities that are unable to accept the legal risk of shipping VP8

  4.  Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license terms around H.264 and there are entities that are unable to accept the legal risk of shipping VP8. Additionally I am not comfortable trying to define "browsers"

  5.  All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Barely acceptable

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: There appear to be no entities that are prevented from shipping one of these at this time based on the responses I have seen, however we may find at a future time that this is not true. It also will be meaningless at a future time when a new codec comes along that is in all ways superior. I also believe that it will be reasonable to have "audio-only WebRTC devices", and those obviously won't want to ship either codec.

  6.  All entities MUST support H.261

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost of having this code.

  7.  There is no MTI video codec

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: All of my other objections are remedied by this option. Additionally, this entire straw poll is flawed in that the technical community is answering on behalf of their respective legal departments, who are not present for the discussion.

  8.  All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost of having this code

  9.  All entities MUST support Theora

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost of having this code. Also unclear IPR issues around this codec.

  10. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: H.261 is an Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost of having this code.

  11. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: H.263 is an older, less efficient codec but still has IPR issues that some entities will not be able to meet. There are few entities that can meet this by shipping VP8 and H.264.

  12. All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: At this time I am not convinced that there is a way for all entities to comply with the decoding requirement.

  13. All entities MUST support H.263

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Older less-efficient codec, IPR issues.

  14. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Code cost and IPR risk of carrying Theora, impossibility of complying by shipping VP8 and H.264 for almost all entities.

  15. All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Code cost and IPR risk of carrying Theora. Also my understanding of Theora is that there is no separate smaller decoder-only codebase.

  16. All entities MUST support Motion JPEG

     *   Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO

     *   Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them: Codec does not provide sufficient quality at reasonable bandwidth for any use case.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email