[rtcweb] Your reply (was RE: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

I’m afraid I don’t understand the below at all… IETF allows individuals to contribute, so is this your individual contribution? If so, can you please re-submit it as such… if not, I’m not sure your organization has come to the correct venue.

Matthew Kaufman

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Badri Rajasekar
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:36 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Hi All,

Please find below TokBox's position with regards to the straw poll responses.

1.    All entities MUST support H.264
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
The feasibility of supporting H264 in all platforms is questionable given licensing issues (despite the Cisco binaries) and availability of APIs. The burden of IPR issue is going to deter small application developers especially in non-browser entities.

2.    All entities MUST support VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

3.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Same objections as point 1 and VP8 is a better alternative in this light.

4.    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

5.    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Interoperability is key and this would necessitate transcoding at a server or some equally non-viable option for effectively using WebRTC.

6.    All entities MUST support H.261
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Although H.261 would be a step back in terms of quality needs of WebRTC video.

7.   There is no MTI video codec
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
There needs to be a consensus for platform adoption. Lack of an MTI video codec is hurting forward progress of WebRTC.

8.    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  Acceptable

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
H.261 is not viable from a quality perspective and this mostly going to end up as fallback to H.261 in several scenarios without the advantages of H264/VP8 quality.

9.    All entities MUST support Theora
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Technically this seems like a step back.

10.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
While superficially it appears fine, in my opinion it will hurt interoperability.

11.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
 IPR issues with H.263 and H.264 are problematic.

12.    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
The IPR risk of H.264 is only partially mitigated with decoding and I believe this will hurt adoption by small developers.

13.    All entities MUST support H.263
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.
Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:  H.263 doesn't provide better quality (as compared to VP8/H264) and potential IPR risks.

14.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:  No.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
 Same problem as Point 10.

15.    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Same as 9.

16.    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO.

Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Existing market support might be limited and again performance concerns.

Thanks,
Badri

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:25 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>; Gonzalo Camarillo; Richard Barnes; Magnus Westerlund; Cullen Jennings
Subject: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

Dear WG,

This is the email announcing the straw poll across the video codec alternatives proposed to the WG. If you haven’t read the “Next Steps in Video Codec Selection Process” (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html )then please do that before you continue to read.

The straw poll’s purpose is to make it clear to the WG which of the alternatives that are favored or disfavored and what objections you have, if any, against a particular alternative. The WG chairs will use the information from this straw poll to identify an alternative to put as a single consensus question to the group. Thus, everyone that has an opinion on at least one alternative should answer this poll. Provide your poll input by replying to this email to the WG mailing list. The poll will run until the end of the 12th of January 2014.

As can be seen below, the poll lists the alternative that have proposed to the WG. For each alternative two questions are listed.

The first question is “Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:”. These three levels allow you to indicate that you: Yes= I would be fine with the WG choosing this option. No = I really don’t favor this, and it should not be picked. Acceptable = I can live with this option but I prefer something else to be picked.

The second question is “Do you have any objections to this option, if so please explain it:” If you have any objection at a minimum indicate it with a “Yes”.   Please also add a short (1-sentence) summary of each of the objections you believe applies.  (If you wish to provide a longer explanation, please do so in a separate thread).  If you have no objection, leave that question blank.

Please provide input on as many of the alternatives as you like and feel comfortable to do. The more inputs, the more well informed decision the WG chairs can take when identifying the option to be brought forward for consensus. Any alternative that you chose to leave blank, will simply be considered as one without any input from you.

WG participants, please do not comment on anyone’s input in this thread! If you want to comment, then create a separate thread and change the subject line to something else. Otherwise you are making life for the chairs very difficult to track the results of this straw poll.

If discussion causes you to update your position, please feel free to send an update via email on the straw poll thread prior to the closing date.

1.    All entities MUST support H.264

a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

2.    All entities MUST support VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: