Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 09 May 2012 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 3023D21F85E3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 22:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 j934ZaCgZTGS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 22:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8365721F85D9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 22:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-16-41-249.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([108.16.41.249] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1SRzj5-0001JU-0t for rtcweb@ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 00:46:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4FAA045E.6010009@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 01:45:02 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5B26F813B14D224999A508377061EDBBB1215C@EX2K10MB1.vb.loc> <A9FB11DB-8617-4ED6-BDB4-689FD5E7C0C7@softarmor.com> <20120504104446.2d7b2715@lminiero-acer> <CAOHm=4scg-+QnU2g_Tbmc1c615rrRO=oiUCAQ3nL4JORU+3Zmg@mail.gmail.com> <4FA3E48E.1050204@freedesktop.org> <BLU169-W20EE1AD0881F6C8F48B31932C0@phx.gbl> <CAOJ7v-0=MxAYGjxEyRcizfNYMnDJw6XiHoVuCzmnznFUy2YncA@mail.gmail.com> <4FA94E5E.4000102@mozilla.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE23305F970@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE23305F970@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion on codec choices from a developer who doesn't come to IETF
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: Wed, 09 May 2012 05:46:20 -0000

On 5/8/2012 2:35 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> I suspect the key question is being missed here to make the arguments look more attractive.
>
> Most mobile devices (at least those on 3GPP standards) trying to do anything other than RTCWEB with their screens and cameras will need to support H.264 anyway.
>
> So the discussion needs to be around what are the pros and cons of supporting both VP8 and H.264 on the same mobile, as opposed to only having to support H.264.

This only has any real import if you're talking hardware 
implementations.  Hardware H.264 doesn't preclude software VP8 (or vice 
versa), and the software is available, and a trivial amount of flash 
space.  So I see nothing to discuss around "both VP8 and H.264 vs. just 
H.264 on mobile".

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org