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

Gustavo Garcia <ggb@tokbox.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ggb@tokbox.com>
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 1784211E8125 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:23:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 iWHeffC9lDLT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:23:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys010aog107.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog107.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC14411E8170 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:23:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com ([209.85.220.176]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob107.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUnmL7lHlx8YETU7Vua7T30OXH/2eOCJX@postini.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:23:11 PST
Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ia6so6074220vcb.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:23:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8duetkzAxvEIzWbuuezGkRoBwQAu2Tn1a6MILW51DiI=; b=C2y55p5mpxnpHhLvfTUGupZyCT1IT+IrOueUPi/sAynvULpFMWg0Tkcrun07To29Z6 rXqFPxbdRfSzy2jeBmju8uj/btMqN/U0QOOXXXo7uDTaKj3EWZYHoKaaYDjjGt2YpFKv AMV+nT6i9LzJEwDYiOFiQGp4/Cog4htWbXBymA/mzA7Y2EUIg3DPmVW3mOwJVf+yT3Bw zfm17XhPOcK6vuSCbprz3Hg4u36sSRsgKMMBs9eQoQBlX6AHpJ/fjHrXOZ6HObfAKn+f Ef42Uq0V7MHE28DFrPVz9k9bnrisF8mCxaIN5bJ8D1f+LlIrV9HJeynsWZ+a6sljG7RR rSTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnaXMwzUOCxscAkEDLwLj//fi723rdS4TzLwji7+uFPbEdKo7ctbaGqdkeS5AVzkiLrUiqiB2rUA1tngQ8o468EJO1ytqgQQfmoN6womn0isICaQYb4URUsb5YaNG8qSbpzuByfFDmC7FkdWpPcDO3oHN4PuA==
X-Received: by 10.220.252.71 with SMTP id mv7mr129598vcb.68.1383697389989; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:23:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.252.71 with SMTP id mv7mr129590vcb.68.1383697389859; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.211.200 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:23:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOqqYVEER_HprgauRawO+_gGdLdMY1MUY8jrMhhi3yVDL31bFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:23:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPvKHKgOOu8yMMiky1MyWs_BKKgkxkfWguVfsHkrMYUKmbKjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gustavo Garcia <ggb@tokbox.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01227b3666570004ea77272c
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 00:23:16 -0000

+1

H.264 licensing as introduced by Cisco is great because it opens the door
to truly present H.264 as a viable alternative codec for broad
implementation in WebRTC endpoints, but Cisco’s proposal as it stands is
not enough to warrant H.264 being adopted as an MTI for WebRTC.

>From TokBox’s point of view, WebRTC needs to be able to solve two needs if
true adoption is intended:  1) supporting interoperability with legacy
end-points and 2) enabling novel and innovative real-world use-cases on a
broad range of software-powered end-points (mobile included, not just
browsers)

The option as proposed with H.264 is not really viable in mobile native
applications (specifically iOS devices as the situation stands today),
whether both endpoints are mobile native or one is browser-based. At
TokBox, we are already seeing a wide range of very interesting applications
being built on top of WebRTC using native mobile apps as one of the
endpoints, and the standard must do the right thing by not preventing these
scenarios from playing out.

As far as MTI codecs go, we still believe VP8 is the right option and
believe H.264 should be embraced as an optional alternative video codec.The
purpose of the WebRTC is not to create a browser compatible with existing
solutions (many of which are closed systems) but rather to bring the best
possible experience to application developers, extending the capabilities
of the web for real-time communication. (More of our views here:
http://www.tokbox.com/blog/is-webrtc-ready-for-h-264/)



On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com> 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.
>
> Harald (sending this from my Google address)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>