Re: [rtcweb] On video codec for rtcweb

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi

Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
>
>[e-mail] wrote:
>> control. I believe those mostly use H.264. It's probably possible to
>> use transcoders but so it is between browsers too. I'd say that even
>> if couldn't
>
>With a direct browser-to-browser connection, there is nothing sitting
>between them to do the transcoding. In the DTLS-SRTP case with identity
>verification, which I think a number of people here view as highly important,
>you are in fact _guaranteeing_ that nothing but the browser can encode or
>decode the video.
>

Understood. So it would be important to agree on a common codec. However, I'm just wondering if forcing the decision would be wise for the IETF. I have heard many people say that if X was chosen, they wouldn't still suport it. My opinion is that a codec should only be mandated if there is clear consensus about it. Exaggerating a bit but not much that would probably leave us with G.711.

>As for existing non-web video systems, I am happy to send them G.711, and
>no more, if all they wish to support is H.264. 

Indeed :-) That's fine, but for some other people video support in that scenario could be more important. 

>To me, interoperation beyond
>that is no more than a "nice to have". WebRTC was meant to be much more
>expansive than traditional telephony. If all WebRTC turns out to be is another
>vehicle for old-world video conferencing style systems, then we will have
>failed.
>

Here we are in full agreement. I don't think either that the "legacy" interconnect is the highest priority. I don't find the current video call market that impressive that we should somehow limit ourselves to serve it.

Markus