Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sslivinski@lifesize.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 96FB81ADFF3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_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 w_cMFbG4APuw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E2C121ADF81 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.lifesize.com ([207.114.244.10]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob125.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo58snqeA09HNIx2zP9z8/Y4A7XYtrz2@postini.com; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:48 PST
Received: from ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:31:29 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
To: "'lgeyser@gmail.com'" <lgeyser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:31:28 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: Ac7m/6a6UpXz8++dQCix6PRpJqOl4QAAWMIK
Message-ID: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiSnSxdUjjQeAroZ0yZ+kQKyV0WVhERuZCynrtPvOTTwBg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3ausmsex00aust_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'rtcweb@ietf.org'" <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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:35:57 -0000

While I will readily admit this isn't the best analogy I think taking this to extremes and suggesting that someone working in their garage is at risk of being sued for IP infringement and then using that as justification for just requiring H.261 is a bit of a stretch.




From: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:21 PM
To: Stefan Slivinski
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

That is a completely different situation. We are talking about the open web. Not some propriety disc format controlled by big companies.
They can deal with IPR easily. Average people who want to work out of their garage do want other options even if it isn't the best.
Besides this has been pointed out millions of times: Nothing stops anyone to implement VP8 or H.264 if H.261 is made MTI.


On 21 November 2013 23:04, Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com<mailto:sslivinski@lifesize.com>> wrote:
I think arguing in favor of a legacy codec is completely counter productive to the proliferation of webrtc.  This working group is attempting to avoid dealing with the obvious IPR issues with vp8 and h.264 that any and every webrtc vendor is going to have to deal with.  We are basically saying 'we don't know how to deal with this problem so you're on your own' which is completely the wrong message to send as an organization.

Can you imagine if the bluray groups said we don't want to deal with h.264 IPR issues so we'll just mandate h.261?



----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org<mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
<basilgohar@librevideo.org<mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?

More than one person has already.

And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
crappy.
_______________________________________________
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