IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com> Sun, 17 November 2013 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <treising75@gmail.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 5040211E81B2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 uhOOo+9a8yiG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACD311E80F7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n12so5290279wgh.34 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=5jr7SfeRO9WecyhA+qt4kslVtHFbJwLpPrXs+m46rTk=; b=Y3duoNTncBTliXCGcVqwpTzyJdi4QdVjBFHM4C1XSb40SZFGPgqMAJyu3PNzDPLrwT TfNzu+1iJliDiLM51lXUHo+S+stCezGc+Y0Yt1mtAKWs5URzSlh6avaaUT52Co5CL6HT oSvoSGKXF+RK0BKHMHhJMeGnzdqhHpKuc2n4AIXwPYtzXpkDCxZap4yGiQteqELpqQqR aDyaXB1dr+2tlSCqGC6A6RDsmJRuBSdwPcvcDLz+h9Fxdkutobmm2kijseulDYLs4pGx iMGAMngNnX2NbEw3SoZub5Ix31sA2dgHqyV12oI9opC1skp4b1SJUIeceJCwO33Cay4i CoCg==
X-Received: by 10.194.206.5 with SMTP id lk5mr20335wjc.46.1384719194088; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.201] (77.119.226.28.static.drei.at. [77.119.226.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nb16sm17215603wic.0.2013.11.17.12.13.12 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:13:13 -0800 (PST)
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A06EACB-69E2-4CE0-BDF2-1FDFD71159D3@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B554a)
From: Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:13:07 +0100
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:13:45 -0000

Hi,

Instead of h.261, I would recommend h.263 as a common base.

Cheers,

Thomas 
Sent from mobile device

> On 17 Nov 2013, at 20:54, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> just wondering if something like
> 
> "9. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All entities MUST at least implement one of those. Entities that do not support both H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261."
> 
> has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations supporting both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use on of those - H.261 should never be relevant there.
> 
> It appears that all implementors are willing to implement either H.264 or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means that negotiation failure regarding a high-performance codec is a possiblity. In this case H.261 is actually useful so that basic video calls can still be established (for instance, I guess deaf people may always appreciate a video connection, as long as sign language can be transmitted).
> 
> 
> Maik
> 
> 
> Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller:
>> Hi,
>> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only H.264 or
>> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their
>> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change anytime in the
>> next few years.  Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items 1 and 2
>> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by focusing
>> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options.
>> The following alternatives has been proposed:
>> 
>> 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>> 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>>    support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>> 5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>> 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>> 7. There is no MTI video codec
>> 8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
>>    least one of H.264 and VP8
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jeremy Fuller
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email